Using std::bind with member function, use object pointer or not for this argument?

Solution 1:

Both are correct. 20.8.9.1.2 forwards to 20.8.2 to describe the requirements and the effect of your call to bind. 20.8.2 is:

20.8.2 Requirements [func.require]

¹ Define INVOKE(f, t1, t2, ..., tN) as follows:

— (t1.*f)(t2, ..., tN) when f is a pointer to a member function of a class T and t1 is an object of type T or a reference to an object of type T or a reference to an object of a type derived from T;

— ((*t1).*f)(t2, ..., tN) when f is a pointer to a member function of a class T and t1 is not one of the types described in the previous item;

— t1.*f when N == 1 and f is a pointer to member data of a class T and t1 is an object of type T or a reference to an object of type T or a reference to an object of a type derived from T;

— (*t1).*f when N == 1 and f is a pointer to member data of a class T and t1 is not one of the types described in the previous item;

— f(t1, t2, ..., tN) in all other cases.

The first two options allow both a reference and a pointer.

The important thing to notice here is that the wording does not limit you to plain pointers. You could use a std::shared_ptr or some other smart pointer to keep your instance alive while bound and it would still work with std::bind as t1 is dereferenced, no matter what it is (given, of course, that it's possible).

Solution 2:

To add to the correct answer (that both forms are allowed).

I think of the two binding options in analogy with function argument declaration, which may be "passed by value" or "passed by reference".

In the case of f1 (aka passing my_foo "by value") the result doesn't "see" any changes made to my_foo past the binding point. This may not be desired especially if my_foo evolves. "By value" binding has an additional "cost" of (several) calls to a copy constructor.