From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-25 21:45:29
on Fri Dec 07 2007, shunsuke <pstade.mb-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> John Torjo wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The formal review of the Boost.Functional/Forward library, proposed by
>> Tobias Schwinger, begins today :
>> Boost.Functional/Forward provides decorator function objects to have an
>> generic function object accept both RValues and mutable LValues.
> Sorry, this is not a review. Ignore this if irrelevant.
> Was boost::detail::functionN family in Boost.Accumulators considered?
> That seems more advanced than Boost.Functional/Forward.
> FWIW, starting from Abrahams' callable and functionN, I've been implementing a similar library:
> http://tinyurl.com/vd4r5 , which regards Boost.Functional/Forward facility
> as one of higher-order functions, `perfect`.
Hmm. Did anyone reply to this? I think if someone points to an
alternative library with that level of maturity during a review, it
shouldn't be ignored. We should at least have a discussion of the
relative merits of the two approaches before taking a vote.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk