Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 15:43:46
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dean Michael Berris
> > <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> I (and maybe others as well who follow the same logic I follow) don't
> >> see a large enough gap between C++11 lambdas and
> >> Boost.Phoenix/Lambda/Bind function objects that merits being addressed
> >> by local functions. Until you can convince us that local functions are
> >> "absolutely necessary" and that C++ should have it because it makes
> >> certain programming paradigms/techniques possible, I'm afraid what you
> >> have is a solution that's looking for a problem.
> > 1) I don't think I have to convince anyone. Following Boost process, I
> > have first asked for interest in the library about ~1year ago plus all
> > the reviewers have answered the question:
> >> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> > With that information I am confident that the review manager will be
> > able to assess the library usefulness taking into consideration the
> > opinion of /all/ the people that reviewed the library.
> Actually, you kinda have to convince people -- especially now that
> questions have been raised by members of the community, both in the
> review and on this thread. There have been "non-inclusion" votes
> already sent in. I'll throw my hat into that side of the ring too now
> if it's not too late and too much work to write a review.
More than anything, I just want to let everyone know that I'm closely
following this thread (and related threads) to help me make a decision on
Local. I was hoping this discussion would also clarify the position Boost
takes on similar libraries. However, clearly, whatever decision I make is
going to be quite polarizing, and, honestly, I don't think it's a decision
*I* should make; the community appears to be having difficulty coming to
anything resembling a consensus :/
Personally, going into this review, I thought Local was a shoe-in for
acceptance. But I feel like those against inclusion have brought up some
very good points.
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