Re: [boost] Rave for proposed Boost.Local (functions)

Subject: Re: [boost] Rave for proposed Boost.Local (functions)
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-01 18:52:45

Hi Greg (& Lorenzo),

Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
> The purpose of this e-mail is to rave about Lorenzo's proposed 
> Boost.Local library in the hopes of inspiring people to start the review 
> process for it.  :-)
>
> I have been experimenting with using this library in my own code, and it 
> has been a godsend for me.  In one of the projects I have been working 
> on I ran into many situations where I needed to call a higher-order 
> function with a closure, and the closure was just complicated enough 
> that I couldn't use Boost.Lambda.  Before using this library I 
> frequently found myself either writing a lot of extra code to 
> work-around the need for a higher-order function, or writing a lot of 
> boilerplate to create classes that would only be used by a single 
> function in order to create a function object.  This library has let me 
> write the closures that I need in a fairly painless fashion and so has 
> made my life a lot easier!

Do you have any thoughts about how lambdas in C++0x compare for your 
problems?  I guess I'm thinking, how useful is this going to be in a 
couple of years when hopefully we all have C++0x compilers?  Could this 
be seen as a sort of "C++0x lambda emulation" library?  I don't think 
it's really quite the same, though...

Regards,  Phil.