Re: [boost] [local_function] any interest in a LocalFunction library?

Subject: Re: [boost] [local_function] any interest in a LocalFunction library?
From: John Bytheway (jbytheway+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-15 18:35:27

On 15/09/10 15:56, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> 2) I will require users to use `this_` instead of `this` inside local
> functions when the enclosing object is bound. The local function is
> internally implement as a _static_ member of a local class so `this`
> will simply not be available and it cannot be used by mistake instead
> of `this_`.

I'm puzzled; you say you're using static functions here but the examples
you give don't, and in particular this seems incompatible with the "pass
as template parameters" trick and recursion.

> 3) I will use the `bind` preprocessor "keyword" for the parenthesized
> syntax as in `(bind)(...)` and `(const bind)(...)`. `bind` is more
> readable than `bound` or `closure` (plus I do not know English well
> enough to figure out if `bound` is more correct because it is used in
> declarative as supposed as imperative context... English native
> speakers: Help me!).

I think it can be interpreted as either imperative (instructing the
macro to bind things) or declarative (stating that the things are
bound).  I wouldn't worry too much.

> 5) When used within a template, the macros `BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_TPL`,
> `BOOST_LOCAL_CONST_TPL`, etc will need to be used (otherwise you get a
> compiler error). This is necessary for the library to apply `typename`
> from within the template where the type determination is context
> depend (and given that C++ does not allow to use `typename` outside
> templates). The same convention is used by Boost.ScopeExit, etc.

I think C++0x allows the typename keyword in more contexts, so you might
be able to get away with it having only one variety there.  Probably not
worth the trouble, though, given that the library is somewhat made
obsolete by C++0x features anyway...

John Bytheway