From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-25 22:53:50
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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.
I think the Egg library is awesome. Is it in the review queue yet?
If not, it should be. My opinion here is that it can co-exist with
the Forward library just as boost.bind can coexist with boost.lambda.
It's not always a matter of which is more sophisticated. Certainly,
bind is a subset of lambda. Yet, even with the simplicity of bind,
it is sufficiently useful in many applications. I'd say the same for
Egg and Boost.Functional.
Let's have more FP in C++! :-)
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk