From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-13 10:10:32
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> I view this as a logical extension of the notion that you can do this:
>
> void f();
>
> template <class T, class F> g(F f)
> {
> return f();
> }
>
> ...
> g(f); // legal
But you can't do this:
template<class T> void g(T);
g(f()); // T cannot become void
which is why bind() fails.
You could raise the issue on -ext. ;-)
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.