From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-20 10:10:39
On Friday 20 February 2004 04:35 am, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> I do not think we understand each other. Let me rephrase. My position is
> that polymorphic function object support does not belong to the library
> dedicated to "functional programming", even though I propose to update
> boost/functional.hpp header ;))
> (BTW it would really help for the whole
> library review, if you could provide a little introduction what is a
> "functional programming" in a first place; how it differ from other
> programming styles and what is the place of your library in this - I mean
> what purpose does it serve, what solution does it provide).
I think this is way out of scope for the library. Functional programming has
been around for ages, and it shouldn't be up to Brian to introduce and
explain all of it in his introduction.
> Also after
> previous letter I found that you actually provide a lot more "functoids"
> within the library, then counterparts to the STL functional.hpp function
> objects. These should go in FC++ specific headers (and I mean headers - one
> per name).
If I need to include boost/fcpp/plus.hpp separately from boost/fcpp/minus.hpp,
I'm going to very, very unhappy. I agree with breaking up large components
intro multiple headers, but when we get 20 headers with 10 lines of code in
them each, all related, we've gone too far.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk