Re: [sigc] How to use sigc::bind<>

[Jeff Franks <jcf tpg com au>]

Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:

> > From: Martin Schulze [mailto:martin-ml hippogriff de] 
> > Am 2003.11.10 08:03 schrieb(en) Jeff Franks:
> >    
> >
> > > Martin Schulze wrote:
> > >
> > >      
> > You are right, it seems to work! I'm surprised that the right 
> > function overload is chosen automatically for bind() without 
> > the number! I hope this is not gcc specific. I will commit 
> > this change to cvs. Should we change to zero based argument 
> > counting for bind<#>, then? Don't forget that this might 
> > cause even more confusion for people who use selectors _1, 
> > _2, etc. from any lambda library or bind1st(), bind2nd() from 
> > stl. I really don't know what will be more intuitive: 
> > 0,1,2... or 1,2,3...
> >    
>
> Please do consider not including an API if it can't be done simply. Really,
> who needs to bind more than 1 argument?
>
> In general, I prefer 0-based indexing, and 1-based counting.
>  
If you use 0-based indexing and reserved -1 as the end marker (there's 
that -1 again) no one would have to actually use  -1. In the overloaded 
(or is that specialized) bind functions -1 could be used instead of zero.

template <class T_bound1, class T_functor>
template <class T_bound1, class T_functor>
inline bind_functor<-1, typename unwrap_reference<T_bound1>::type, 
T_functor>
bind(const T_functor& _A_func, T_bound1 _A_b1)
{
return bind_functor<-1, typename unwrap_reference<T_bound1>::type, 
T_functor>
         (_A_func, _A_b1);
}

Jeff .