Re: [boost] Report from Berlin C++ Standards Committee meeting

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-13 03:20:40

"Peter Dimov" wrote

> What I really want is this:
>
> void foo( myvec& v, const myset& s, int a )
> {
> // ...
>
>    inline bool f( int x ) { return std::abs( x ) < a && s.find( x ) !=
> s.end(); }
>
>    v.erase( std::remove_if( v.begin(), v.end(), f ), v.end() );
> }
>
> for obvious readability reasons. This syntax also allows me to use a more
> descriptive name instead of f, and the consistency with ordinary function
> definitions will make it easier to teach. It may be somewhat easier to parse
> or specify, but I haven't considered this in detail.

Its interesting that you bring up the teaching issue AFAIK.  Robert Rameys
earlier point regarding  the benefits of  what seems to just be a "cool" feature
to C++ is apt . Do local functions, named or unnamed really add that much to the
language?. They do certainly add another layer of complexity to the parser and
whats more important another layer of complexity that students will feel that
they must learn and use.

C++'s main problem is that it doesnt have enough standard libraries to compete
with (say) Java. Two obvious ones still not on the horizon are Unicode and GUI.
( I am going to try to do something about the GUI, though there must be much
greater GUI experts than me that could do a better job).  A major reason given
by the committee AFAICS (in GUI case) was that the committee doesnt have enough
time to deal with it. Yet there seems to be adequate time to discuss the
addition of more complexities to the language itself. A great language missing
some essential standard libraries. Will that be C++ epitaph?

bemused
Andy Little