Re: [boost] [review] Fast track formal review of Forward library begins today

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-27 11:03:40

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 
>>> n-ary,
>>> 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?  

Yes, but for some odd reason my reply neither reached the list nor my 
'Sent' folder (I probably missed a local error message).

> I think if someone points to an
> alternative library with that level of maturity during a review, it
> shouldn't be ignored.  

I certainly did not ignore it as I picked it up in another post:

     http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/32368

> We should at least have a discussion of the
> relative merits of the two approaches before taking a vote.

I don't see a problem for "Egg" to use "Forward"...

Regards,
Tobias