From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-06 11:57:44
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> > See the attached for a first cut.
> It looks good, and it's certainly an improvement over the plain alphabetic
> list (which still can be useful too). One thing that concerns me, though, is
> classification such libraries as 'tuple', 'function', 'functional' and
> 'compose' into "Helpers" as opposite to "General use" category. For example,
> to me 'any' library doesn't seem to be in any way more "general purpose"
> than 'boost::function' or 'tuple', and I would prefer to see all of those in
> the same category.
Perhaps 'compose', 'functional' and 'function' belong in a "Higher-order
programming" category? 'Compose' and 'functional' (and soon 'bind', maybe
eventually 'lambda') all
deal with the composition of functions and/or binding of arguments.
'function' allows the resulting functions to fit into a statically-typed
Also, 'any' and 'tuple' could be placed in a category of "extension data
structures" (any is an unbounded discriminated union, whereas tuple is an
aggregate whose elements are indexed rather than named). The recently
discussed 'optional' and 'variant' would also be candidates for this
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk