[boost] FC++ integration/future issues (was "Some FC++ comments")

From: Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-15 11:38:17

On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 11:29:49AM +0200, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> You've done a great piece of code! I've tried to understand your
> articles about the differences between fcpp and boost::lambda/bind/etc.
> and these (the differences) are now clear to me (to some degree :-).
> 
> OTOH I know, that there is going on serious work to merge boost::lambda
> with Phoenix to overcome some well known limitations of both and to
> avoid having two similar libraries in boost. Wouldn't it be nice, if
> after this merger we'd get _one_ library lambda + phoenix + fcpp? Or
> isn't this possible at all?

It may well be possible.  I have had a little bit of discussions with
Jaakko and Joel (off-list) about this.  I have not had the opportunity
to think deeply about it though; it is unclear to me if the FC++
implicit assumption of 'value semantics' (FC++ doesn't allow (mutable)
reference parameters) will throw a wrench in the works.  It is also
unclear to me how much "rework" such an integration might necessitate.
(I am very pleased to say that integrating/reusing other (small)
portions of boost in FC++'s implementation went very smoothly.)

This begs another important (at least to me :) ) question about FC++ and
Boost.  Can FC++ be accepted into Boost prior to any "integration" with
lambda/phoenix/bind?  I hope that the answer is yes, for a few reasons:
 - It will give the boost user/developer community the opportunity to
   gain some experience with FC++, to see better what its merits and 
   demerits are.
 - It will provide an opportunity to see how well/badly the various 
   libraries interoperate now (as separate libraries), which may expose
   more of the important integration issues.
 - It means less time for FC++ to languish in the current state it's in,
   where I'm doing work to `boostify' and improve it, but no one is
   using it.
I'm still a newbie to this community, so I have no idea what the opinion
of the `ruling committee' is (or will be) on these issues.  But it would
be helpful to me to know (at least to have a better idea where my
immediate future lies).

So if anyone has opinions or constructive thoughts on this issue, I'd
like to hear them.

-- 
-Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])