----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]>
> I think you're close to the optimal. I'd probably drop function and
> write:
>
> auto g1 = int(int b, int c, int d) { return g(2,b,c,d); };
That actually fails to compile in 2.047:
curry.d(13): found '(' when expecting '.' following int
> All things considered, I'm not sure that that's worse than the
> arcana:
>
> auto g1 = bind(&g, _1);
>
> ...
>
> All in all, std.bind looks like a direct derivative of Boost's design, which
> is built
> to deal with C++'s issues, and does not avail itself of D's advantages.
It is at least shorter and comprehensible when glancing at it, though. I'm not
a great fan of the boost syntax or implementation ported to D either, but I
also recognize the need for some easy way to automate that much boiler plate
code. Maybe I'll futz around and see if I can come up with a nice way of doing
partial application. If I can, could that be considered for inclusion in
functional or something?
Either way, I'd politely suggest that bind should either be fixed or removed.
I assume it's been broken for 6 months now, and maybe 3 years, in D 2.0. Seems
a shame to throw away something that at least fills a hole for the time being
until something better comes along, but it may be better to keep confidence in
stability up.
Jason
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
