Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 06:48:59
On 25 Nov 2011, at 11:38, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Christopher Jefferson
> <chris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 25 Nov 2011, at 11:01, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>> If the rejection of N2511 in favor of the current lambda is any
>>> indication, even the committee finds that local functions an
>>> unnecessary complication. What makes you think that bringing N2511
>>> back into C++03 would even make sense especially since there are
>>> already approximations to C++11 lambda's?
>>> It's logic really:
>>> 1) C++11 lambda > N2511
>>> 2) Since Phoenix ~ (C++11 lambda + more) and Local ~ N2511
>>> 3) Therefore, Phoenix > N2511
>>> 4) QED
> Of course, my bad. I don't have my compiler handy, what was I thinking?!
> 1) C++11 lambda > N2511
> 2) Since Phoenix ~ (C++11 lambda + more) and Local ~ N2511
> 3) Therefore Phoenix > Local
> 4) QED
This will be my last comment in this thread :)
Your flaw is that Pheonix ~ (C++11 lambda + more), as Phoenix has significant disadvantages compared to C++11 lambda (that have been discussed at length), as well as significant advantages (as you say).
Therefore Phoenix is incomparable with C++11 lambda, so Phoenix is comparable with Local.
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