Re: [boost] [phoenix] request for a mini-review. (Re: Phoenix as a Boost library)

Subject: Re: [boost] [phoenix] request for a mini-review. (Re: Phoenix as a Boost library)
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-16 20:38:33

On 10/17/2010 7:41 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> Le 16/10/2010 14:34, Thomas Heller a écrit :
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Eric Niebler<eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2010 4:41 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>>> Anyway, having said that, just keep in mind that people have been
>>>> clamoring for phoenix and I'd prefer something done sooner rather
>>>> than later. We can tweak the library later as long as the main interface
>>>> (not the extension interface) is stable. And it has remained more
>>>> or less stable for a long time now. IMO, it should be a priority to
>>>> focus on the remaining incompatibilities before anything else.
>>>
>>> Hmm, good point.
>>
>> Definitely a good point. Though, most of the stuff that doesn't work
>> just yet was very difficult with the current intermediate form. That
>> is why I started the discussion about that new design. So, even if the
>> top level API is fixed (it was fixed already before, no real breakage
>> between V2 and V3)
>
> I thought V2 doesn't follow the result_of protocol, and didn't do perfect forwarding either.
> Those are the reasons I'm not using it and waiting for V3.

Those are really low hanging fruits that were the first to be
implemented in V3.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net