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?)


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


    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.


    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:

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


Joel de Guzman

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at