Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | My question is whether we can avoid these arbitrarily-named
> | functors and have code which is understandable at-a-glance. If the
> | code above could be replaced with
> | return (from == lambda::_1.from() && to ==
> | lambda::_2.to());
> | then I'd be very happy indeed.
>
> Are you really ready for lambda?
Let's say that I'm ready to be introduced to it.
> (and labmda has harsher compiler requirements than function/bind)
>From the lambda docs (boost-cvs):
7.3. Portability
The BLL works with the following compilers, that is, the compilers are
capable of compiling the test cases that are included with the BLL:
* GCC 3.0.4
* KCC 4.0f with EDG 2.43.1
* GCC 2.96 (fails with one test case, the
exception_test.cpp results in an internal compiler error. )
So it looks to me like our current support for gcc-2.95 will not be
changed should you start addding lambda expressions.
--
Angus
