Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 12:59:12
> > I don't get why broken code (whether code using Phoenix or Local)
> > should be the basis for whether a library is superior to another as
> > far as end-user experiences is concerned. It's broken code, it doesn't
> > even compile!
> Because I have spent more than 10 minutes figuring why Phoenix code
> wouldn't compile, and that hasn't happened with any other C++ library.
What's the problem with having to _think_ for 10 minutes? If you get through
that experience it will take you only 9 minutes when you have to do it
again. I still can't understand why people complain when they have to use
> In general, when writing code programmers spend much more time with code
> which is either compile-time, or run-time, incorrect. If I wrote perfect
> code first time, then my job would be much, much easier! It is the
> compiler's fault, but in practice, it makes the library very, very hard to
If you don't love fixing bugs you're in the wrong profession.
> Personally, if boost local was accepted I would expect to use it for a
> year or so, until I could assume people I work with all had decent C++11
> compilers, and then drop it for lambdas. I'm never going to start using
> boost::phoenix in code I share with other people.
Great, do that. Boost.Local has not to be in Boost in order for this plan to
> Is that a good enough reason to accept it into boost? I'm not completely
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk