From: Dill, John (john-dill_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-16 14:17:54
"Peter Dimov"
> The types in l_ are always add_value processed, the types in the other listN
> that stores references to the arguments at the call site are not. In
>
> bind(f, a1, a2)(b1, b2);
>
> bind(f, a1, a2) creates a list2 that holds the values of a1 and a2,
> add_value-processed. The call (b1, b2) creates a list2<B1&, B2&> that holds
> references to b1 and b2.
>
> These are all implementation details. I don't see why you seem so worried
> about them. In particular, add_value is only present because of the need to
> support MSVC 6. On a compiler that supports partial specialization, it's
> possible to use an unadorned list2<A1, A2> as l_. Many other implementation
> variations are also possible.
Okay, now that I know add_value is a workaround, that clears up a bit of my confusion. I'm working on a typelist variety of bind that works with Loki typelist defined functors.
My apologies for my wording of my initial confusion with the bind library. I should have thought about asking why bind was designed thus in a less arrogant way than I initially asked. Hopefully bad first impressions on boost are forgotten faster than bad first impressions with parents.
Best,
John