From 16a07b25928ac891fb08ccecd70d38853c8e0277 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Dimov Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:54:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] mem_fn FAQ updated. [SVN r11786] --- mem_fn.html | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) diff --git a/mem_fn.html b/mem_fn.html index 31a4e22..7c977dc 100644 --- a/mem_fn.html +++ b/mem_fn.html @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ std::mem_fun[_ref] adaptors?

Should I replace every occurence of std::mem_fun[_ref] with mem_fn in my existing code?

+

Will mem_fn work with COM methods?

+

Why isn't BOOST_MEM_FN_ENABLE_STDCALL defined automatically?

Interface

Synopsis

Common requirements

@@ -194,6 +196,21 @@ that need adaptable function objects in order to function might not like mem_fn.

+

Will mem_fn work with COM methods?

+ +

+Yes, if you #define BOOST_MEM_FN_ENABLE_STDCALL. +

+ +

Why isn't BOOST_MEM_FN_ENABLE_STDCALL defined automatically?

+ +

+Non-portable extensions, in general, should default to off to prevent vendor +lock-in. Had BOOST_MEM_FN_ENABLE_STDCALL been defined automatically, you could +have accidentally taken advantage of it without realizing that your code is, +perhaps, no longer portable. +

+

Interface

Synopsis