Subject: Re: [boost] Rave for proposed Boost.Local (functions)
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-02 06:31:06
On 02/02/2011 08:46, Michael Caisse wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 11:24 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>> It might help Lorenzo's cause to give specific examples where he (or
>> anyone else) feels the (proposed) Boost.Local construct is superior in
>> some way to the Boost.Phoenix construct.
> Agreed. As a heavy user of Phoenix 2.0 I am unable to see the
> improvements over existing Phoenix or the anticipate release of 3.0. A
> list of benefits over existing solutions as well as known limitations
> would be extremely helpful in determining the relevance of this proposed
I can see one clear advantage: error messages are readable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk