RE: [boost] Re: Standardization of Boost libraries

From: Gary Powell (powellg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-06 15:37:32

>>------------------

How about Boost.Function.  I think this is one of the most useful
libraries that's included in Boost... though my opinion is clouded a
bit by the fact that it's need by Boost.Threads.  I also think that
Boost.Bind is something that should be addressed by the standard as
well, and makes using Boost.Function much more bearable for a lot of
applications (again, opinion clouded by Boost.Threads' needs).

A lambda library could replace these, but the concepts of lambda are
foreign enough to most C++ users that I think the simpler
Boost.Function and Boost.Bind libraries would still be helpful even
if a lambda library were standardized.  So don't consider my
suggestion for these two is meant to preclude lambda libraries for
either Boost or the standard, but these two libraries are absolute
must haves for familiar ways to simplify the usage of generic
algorithms, and so fill a known hole.

<<----------------------
Lambda (which is coming up for review next week) does have a replacement for
Boost.bind. However as a "standard" the implementation isn't the
requirement, but the functionality is. And "bind" as a replacement for
bind1st/mem_fun et.al. is incredibly useful. However a full language feature
change would be even more useful than the Lambda library, (anonymous
functions). Until then Lambda will have to do.

Lambda is also designed to work with Boost.Function not as a replacement for
it.

==============================
I also second the vote for "tuples", in addition to "graph", and "math
including random"

I'd also like to see Boost.threads there as well.

  Yours,
 -Gary-