Re: [boost] Giving names to formal parameters of lambda expressions: a named placeholder trick.

From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-02 13:16:45

Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
> 
> Anyways, I see that you take great care to guarantee static
> initialization of stateful function objects. Do you really think this
> is a case that is worth supporting? What are the use cases? (for
> example, did you use this functionality when implementing oven?).
> 
> It seems to me that it complicates a lot the interface of the library
> (with tons of ugly macros). I understand that this functionality is
> opt-in (i.e. it is there only if you want it), but I feel
> unconfortable. May be I'm worring too much, but I think that it really
> makes the docs hard to follow.

The ability to statically initialize global objects is pretty important. 
In the early days of xpressive, I got a bug report about a crash which 
was due to construction order of its global objects, which let to 
Proto's expressions-are-aggregates design. If an object must be a 
namespace scope -- and function objects must if they are to truly behave 
as regular functions -- I won't use them if they need dynamic 
initialization.

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com