On 10-08-09 10:55 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:31 PM, OvermindDL1<[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Koen Deforche<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> Hey Volker, >>> >> >>> >> 2010/8/9 Volker<[email protected]>: >>> >> ( see also my recent blog post about c++0x lambda's and Wt : >>> >> http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt#/blog/2010/08/06/wt_and_c__0x/ ) >> > >> > I really do not like C++0x lambda's, they are restricted and >> > monomorphic and so forth. Look at this example from your blog post: > Hey, I read the article in the comment of that above blog post and > noticed it spoke of the monomorphic restriction of C++0x lambdas as > well, which phoenix handles perfectly as mentioned earlier.:)
If you are referring to the link about C++0x lambda and Boost Bind, I wrote the comment and the article. C++0x lambdas are mostly useless to me if they are monomorphic. I feel that very strongly and I brought it up as a concern to a committee member. Want to guess why they are monomorphic? Come on.. Try.. Got it? No? Ok, I'll tell you... It's because.. Of.. Concepts! Yep, the feature which may never make it in handicapped quite possibly one of the biggest features in the new C++ language. Argh. -- Sohail Somani -- iBlog : http://uint32t.blogspot.com iTweet: http://twitter.com/somanisoftware iCode : http://bitbucket.org/cheez ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
