Return to Question

Got rid of redundancy, might not be the most technical solution but:

boost::function<double (const double)> bindCPricer(OptionPricer &pricer) { return boost::bind(&OptionPricer::CallPrice, &pricer, _1); } boost::function<double (const double)> bindPPricer(OptionPricer &pricer) { return boost::bind(&OptionPricer::PutPrice, &pricer, _1); } cout << "Mesh1 Call: " << pricer1.Mesher(start, end, h, bindCPricer(pricer1)) << " Mesh1 Put: " << pricer1.Mesher(start, end, h, bindPPricer(pricer1)) << endl; cout << "Mesh2 Call: " << pricer2.Mesher(start, end, h, bindCPricer(pricer2)) << " Mesh2 Put: " << pricer2.Mesher(start, end, h, bindPPricer(pricer2)) << endl; 

Thank you very much for your input!

Btw. I have been programming Java for more than 10 years, I am wondering why I haven not learnt C++ earlier, so far it looks much more powerful to me, boost is awesome, templating is also more sophisticated than Java Generics.

I got this now:

Why I did not want to use an instance was because I would then need to bind it to all 3 pricer instances, they contain the data to build the mesh from e.g. they differ in their instance values, I think I might need to make the bind more dynamic somehow.

I got this now, after advise from Mike Seymour:

Why I did not want to use an instance was because I would then need to bind it to all 3 pricer instances, they contain the data to build the mesh from e.g. they differ in their instance values, I think I might need to make the bind more dynamic somehow.

E.g. above function is not correct since I use only pricer1 function bindings on pricer2 and pricer3 instances.

What I would do at current stage is duplicating that for pricer2, pricer3 etc. Actually I wanted to get rid of redundancy and not duplicate the mesher since it is just iterating over a range, now I still have kind of duplication but definitely better than having a kind of duplication on the function side.

boost::function<double (const double)> functCP = boost::bind(&OptionPricer::CallPrice, &pricer2, _1); boost::function<double (const double)> functPP = boost::bind(&OptionPricer::PutPrice, &pricer2, _1); 

Thank you for the comments, I tried the const double as well before.

Given the advise I tried this now, which works, out of that another question arises.

I got this now:

 // Calculate meshes double start = 0, end = 20, h = 0.5; boost::function<double (const double)> functCP = boost::bind(&OptionPricer::CallPrice, &pricer1, _1); boost::function<double (const double)> functPP = boost::bind(&OptionPricer::PutPrice, &pricer1, _1); cout << "Calculate meshes:" << endl; cout << "Mesh1 Call: " << pricer1.Mesher(start, end, h, functCP) << " Mesh1 Put: " << pricer1.Mesher(start, end, h, functPP) << endl; cout << "Mesh2 Call: " << pricer2.Mesher(start, end, h, functCP) << " Mesh2 Put: " << pricer2.Mesher(start, end, h, functPP) << endl; cout << "Mesh3 Call: " << pricer3.Mesher(start, end, h, functCP) << " Mesh3 Put: " << pricer3.Mesher(start, end, h, functPP) << endl; 

Why I did not want to use an instance was because I would then need to bind it to all 3 pricer instances, they contain the data to build the mesh from e.g. they differ in their instance values, I think I might need to make the bind more dynamic somehow.