Boost mailing page: [boost] Re: [ptr_container] indirect_fun - do we still need it?

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-10 13:57:32

Next message: Andreas Huber: "[boost] Re: [sandbox cvs][fsm] Rename from fsm -> statechart pending"
Previous message: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] Re: Re: FOREACH / C++ "for" proposal"
In reply to: Thorsten Ottosen: "[boost] Re: [ptr_container] indirect_fun - do we still need it?"
Next in thread: Pavel Chikulaev: "[boost] Re: [ptr_container] indirect_fun - do we still need it?"

We sure still need fun, even if it's indirect :-)

Arkadiy

Next message: Andreas Huber: "[boost] Re: [sandbox cvs][fsm] Rename from fsm -> statechart pending"
Previous message: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] Re: Re: FOREACH / C++ "for" proposal"
In reply to: Thorsten Ottosen: "[boost] Re: [ptr_container] indirect_fun - do we still need it?"
Next in thread: Pavel Chikulaev: "[boost] Re: [ptr_container] indirect_fun - do we still need it?"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view