Subject: Re: [boost] Re : [local_function] any interest in a LocalFunction library?
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-23 08:24:29
On 23/08/10 13:07, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> I think the main different between using Boost.Phoenix or Boost.Lambda
> and using Boost.LocalFunction is that in Boost.LocalFunction the local
> function body completely retains C++ syntax (a part from using `this_`
> instead of `this`... which is not ideal...).
That's not all:
- Defining a LocalFunction must be done at statement level, while
Phoenix can define functions at expression level,
- Local classes may not have template member functions, which prevent
LocalFunction from defining polymorphic functions.
Those two limitations are pretty huge and severely impact the usefulness
> Now this might or it
> might not be a problem. For example, in my Boost.Contract application
> I need the users to write the local function body and pass it to a
> macro so it is a requirement for that body to be written in usual C++
> because I cannot request Boost.Contract users to learn Boost.Phoenix
> or Boost.Lambda. However, for other applications using Boost.Phoneix
> or Boost.Lambda might be fine.
Having your macro take a function object does not require the user to
use one specific tool or another to generate it.
> I think C++0x lambdas will be a valid option in replacing
> Boost.LocalFunction but they are only part of *new* C++ standard and
> not supported by all compilers.
Right, it doesn't offer anything more than C++0x lambdas do (which are
quite limited already).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk