Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [local_function] any interest in a LocalFunction library?
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-23 08:17:05

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.
<jhellrung_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 8/22/2010 8:09 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> Is there interest in a library that implement local functions for C++?
>> Boost.LocalFunction (PROPOSAL DRAFT)
>> This library allows to define and invoke a function locally within a code
>> block.
>> In addition to the parameters that can be passed to the function as
>> usual upon its invocation, any variable within scope can be /binded/
>> to the local function declaration and used by the local function
>> definition code.
> [...]
> This looks interesting.  My initial question is very superficial: Why did
> you choose the non-standard (to my knowledge) "binded", versus "bound" or
> simply "bind", as the keyword for bound (or, if you prefer, binded)
> parameters?

I used "binded" because, obviously, I still don't know English :) I
meant for it to be "bound".

I'd use "bound" instead of "bind" because Boost.Parameter uses
"deduced" instead of "deduce" (this might have to do with the keyword
being used in declarative instead of imperative context... I had a
similar discussion about C++0x "requires" but I still don't quite
understand this argument...). However, this keyword could be anything
that makes sense to the group... and given my limited English skills,
I am happy to receive suggestions on what the keyword should be:

1) "bound" (my vote)
2) "bind"
3) Something else... what?

Thanks a lot for pointing this out!


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