-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34645/#review85137
-----------------------------------------------------------


This is an interesting case. We have a proxy to another function, rather than 
the implementation of that function as a lambda.
I'm curious what the community's view is on using the proxy lambda approach as 
per your patch, versus a `std::bind`. I think the lambda is more readable, the 
bind is more explicit about what is going on :-)
Depending on the way the community votes, I would add a comment here just 
stating that this is a proxy lambda. What do you think?


src/master/master.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34645/#comment136612>

    1) I don't think this will compile. We need to capture `this` rather than 
`allocator` if we want to access a class member of the member function.
    2) We can use `string` here rather than `std::string` since we are in an 
implementation file that has declared `using std::string`


- Joris Van Remoortere


On May 24, 2015, 4:53 p.m., haosdent huang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34645/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 24, 2015, 4:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Joris Van Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2670
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2670
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Update existing lambdas to meet style guide
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.cpp 1526f59e7c6b135657550eab2ca46216923a01f6 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34645/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> haosdent huang
> 
>

Reply via email to