From: Kirit Sælensminde (kirit.saelensminde_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-25 23:17:08
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Fri Dec 07 2007, shunsuke <pstade.mb-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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++! :-)
I've got to agree. The egg library looks like an incredible bit of work.
I'd love to see this in Boost too.
I for one though do find it confusing when there is overlap between
libraries because normally the documentation of the libraries don't
discus each other's strengths and weaknesses and why you might want to
choose one over the other.
That isn't to say that there shouldn't be overlap between libraries, but
it would be nice if the documentation of the libraries cross tied a bit
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk