From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-10 08:30:05
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I'd think that this is the right expectation for Lambda, but not for
>> FC++ or Bind. Not that I'm helping any :)
>
> No, I don't think so. Expressions that are valid for both Bind and Lambda
> should have the same semantics. And in fact, this is not just
> theory:
Really? I didn't figure out what the code illustrates, but my recent
attempts to use Lambda have been a dismal failure, mostly because of
subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) differences with Bind. For
example, Lambda doesn't seem to support get_pointer to dereference
through smart pointers. The tuple/reference issue I posted about
yesterday was another obstacle.
I'm rather discouraged with how difficult it is to use standard
algorithms -- or even algorithms over sequences as opposed to
iterators -- to write something that could be coded quickly using dumb
loops. I hold out some hope that the long-promised integration of
Lambda and Phoenix will help to solve these problems, but it's hard
to tell when (or if) that's actually coming.
Glum in Somerville,
Dave