Re: std::bind vs ::bind ambiguity

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On 25 April 2011 19:35, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>>
>> I forgot to say, I think this is ok to check in (it passes the
>> testsuite) but will wait for any comments before doing so.
>
> My only minor comment would be the definition of
> __is_socketlike<_Tp>::value: I guess that at some point we'll have to decide
> if we really want the little tedious definition, which also adds to the size
> of the headers, for static consts which are implementation details, thus not
> meant for the users, and which in practice don't really need it when no code
> is taking the addresses.. At the moment, we aren't consistent.

Good point, the definition isn't odr-used in my patch, and users
shouldn't odr-use it either.