Re: [boost] Call for interest - BOOST_AUTO_FUNCTION

Subject: Re: [boost] Call for interest - BOOST_AUTO_FUNCTION
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-18 10:54:45

On 18 Oct 2010, at 15:17, Dean Michael Berris wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:55 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> At Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:45:24 +0800,
>> Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>> 
>>> Now say the standard doesn't get changed to support what you're
>>> proposing (I really hope you'll write the N**** paper so that the C++
>>> committee members can address your concern and the (now in hindsight)
>>> obvious mistake), the use case you intend to enable deserves enough
>>> attention.
>> 
>> FWIW, I seriously doubt this result is from lack of attention.  Much
>> more likely it's due to "implementability concerns."  Understanding
>> that could be important to writing a convincing paper.
>> 
> 
> Does it help the argument for a change if a macro can do the job? I
> mean, what can a preprocessor macro do that the compiler can't
> built-in from the front-end? :D
> 
> I also doubt the committee members weren't paying attention. The
> standard is already huge as it is and diving deep into the details
> (and the aesthetics) of the implementation of one specific feature is
> time and effort consuming.

One big problem is probably the lack of implementations until very late in the process.

rvalue references for example had complete implementations, with libraries, several years ago. This allowed us to find one really nasty issue (lvalues binding to rvalue references) and change it, due to practical experience of usage.

Chris