Re: [boost] Call for interest - BOOST_AUTO_FUNCTION

Subject: Re: [boost] Call for interest - BOOST_AUTO_FUNCTION
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-18 12:28:24

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Christopher Jefferson
<chris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct 2010, at 15:17, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>

I'd agree with this.

> 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.
>

Yeah.

Although sometimes I hope C++ would have a steadier pace of evolution
similar to what Python and Ruby (and dare I say it, Java) have in
place. These languages are of course aren't ISO standards but hey I
can keep dreaming that would happen with C++ right? :D

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
deanberris.com