>Nope. Please see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/23466
>for the semantics clarification. Basically, I want the whole bind
>expression to return an unary function object which, when invoked, will
>use the argument to construct a nested nullary function object:
> bind( &show_warning, message_dialog(), <arg> )
>and pass it as an argument to 'post_command'.
>Does it make more sense now?
Ok, I really should have a cup of coffee before I answer these questions,
The problem with using "lambda" or "bind" in this case is one of order of operations.
You want
// written as if I had inline function definitions.
void f(char *msg) {
.....
post_command(void) {
....
show_warning(message_dialog(), msg);
}
}
now the problem is that you really can't do this elegantly in C++. You can pass the
msg into show_warning either as a global or on the stack. Lambda makes the general
assumption that you want to pass things on the stack. What you need is a temporary
global.
I have some code that might do it, but its not released. (I'm also not sure that
Brian's FC++ solution did it right either.) I could send you a copy and let you try if
you want. Anyway it would look like this.
boost::function<void( user_message )> f(
ll::locals<user_message_type &>(_1) [
bind( &post_command,
bind(bind( &show_warning, message_dialog(),loc0 ) )
]
);
This should cause a reference to the user_message to be able to be referenced inside
of post_command.
But I haven't tested it and I don't have time this week either.
Anyway if there was a case for having a core language feature to do inline function
definitions this is it.
-Gary-
-Gary-
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
