Re: [boost] [local] Help for the Alternatives section

Subject: Re: [boost] [local] Help for the Alternatives section
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-28 02:55:45

On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:44 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2011 04:51:42 AM Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Thomas Heller
>> <thom.heller_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2011 05:38:23 PM Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:If you suggest a text different than "Program body using C++ syntax" I am
>>>> happy to consider changing the title of the row but I think the row itself
>>>> should remain there.
>>>> 
>>>> This row indicates if the "function" body is programmed using the C++
>>>> syntax that programmers normally use to program C++ function bodies
>>>> (and not other C++ constructs).
>>> 
>>> Well, still misleading. It doesn't make it invalid or "unusual" C++ syntax.
>>> 
>>> We had this discussion before ... It is valid and legal C++. Both in syntax 
> and
>>> semantic.
>>> The difference is that you need some extra function calls, pay attention to 
> some
>>> oddities etc. with phoenix and lambda. But it stays valid C++ syntax.
>> 
>> Yes, of course it's all valid C++ since it compiles. I can also add
>> that to the footnote.
> 
> Maybe "Program body using regular C++ statements" is better suited.

That's what came to my mind too - it's statement syntax versus expression syntax, right?  Phoenix has pseudo-statements but they're still in expression syntax.

Fun stuff,
Gordon