[boost] Re: Re: FC++ -- Formal Review Result

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-07 01:20:23

"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:c503c7$ef6$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> [...]
> I am not sure what that mean. What is 'functional' in basic_string
> class template? May be we just need to define terms.

The fact that you can't change the template, just like all templates
in C++.  It is immutable, so metafunctions are strictly pure functions.
Of course, basic_string doesn't perform a very interesting
computation as a template, which is why it doesn't look very
functional to you.  But in fact, it does perform a computation.  It takes
a character type as input and produces a string type as output.  You
cannot change the input character type into the string type, which is
part of why the template is functional.

> [...]
> From that stand point I believed in my review (still do) that FC++ is
> just a toy not a Tool.

I wasn't talking about FC++ in particular here, but rather FP in C++.

> Toy is something kids play with, Tool is something adults use
> to do a real job.
> [...]

I think this is a pretty unprofessional way to make your point.

Dave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 2/9/2004