Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Phoenix review starts today, September 21st
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-22 23:14:39


Loïc Joly wrote:
> Hartmut Kaiser a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The review of Joel de Guzmans and Dan Marsdens Phoenix V2 library starts
>> today, September 21st 2008, and will end on September 30th. I really
>> hope to see your vote and your participation in the discussions on
>> the Boost mailing lists!
> Some questions that a very quick look at the doc did not answer (please
> point me to the right place if such a place exists):
>
> - If this library is accepted, will that make other boost libraries
> deprecated? (from the introduction, I'm thinking of function, lambda and
> bind, maybe some others?)

boost.function:

    No. phoenix has no such facility. Don't confuse
    with phoenix.function.

boost.bind:

    No. bind has its place. It's light(er) and is sufficient
    for many tasks. At the very least we should work towards a unification
    of the placeholders and interoperability.

boost.lambda:

    Depends. The original plan was for a Lambda/Phoenix merger
    with Phoenix2 as the basis. Eseentially, it is possible for Phoenix2(3)
    to be the new Lambda. I outlined a plan sometime ago:

>> One of the obstacles towards merger is that Lambda has some
>> quirks of its own that makes it difficult to provide full backwards
>> compatibility. Eric ported Phoenix 2.0 to proto, making it Phoenix
>> 3.0. In the course of the development, Eric and I seem to both
>> coming to the conclusion that the best route is to leave the
>> Lambda codebase alone and make Phoenix 3.0 the new lambda
>> (i.e. lambda 2.0). And, similar to what we did with Spirit2,
>> we can have an interim release that bundles both the old lambda
>> and the new. With this approach, code that uses Lambda should
>> should not do anything special. Users who want to take advantage
>> of the features of Lambda-2 (aka Phoenix) can upgrade with some
>> minimal code tweaks. If this is an acceptable solution to all
>> parties involved (Jaakko?)

     Yes, Jaakko is in agreement with this approach:

     Jaakko:
> My first reply didn't make it to the list.
> Yes, this would be a good arrangement.

Regards,

-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.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