Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix

Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-04 10:20:52

> It's not just you.
> I've  made a habit (which have been widely adapted by others at my workplace)
> to  make local lambdas like this:
> 
> void my_function()
> {
>    foo_type  foo;
>    bar_type bar;
> 
>   struct {
>        foo_type &foo_;
>       bar_type &bar_;
>        void operator()(a_type a) const
>       {
>             foo_(a);
>             bar_(a);
>       }
>    } lambda = { foo, bar}  ;
> 
>    for_each(as.begin(),as.end(),lambda);
> 
> }
> 
> I don't  know if that's standard compliant, but works perfectly fine in MSVC.
> I like  the {} initializer, so I don't need to write a  boilerplate
> constructor.
> 

AFAIK it is not standard compliant and gcc does not accept this (with 
combination
of for_each of other situations);

But

   struct lambda_type {
        foo_type &foo_;
       bar_type &bar_;
        void operator()(a_type a) const
       {
             foo_(a);
             bar_(a);
       }
    };

  void my_function()
  {
    foo_type  foo;
    bar_type bar;
 
   lambda_type lambda = { foo, bar}  ;
 
    for_each(as.begin(),as.end(),lambda);
 
  }

Is more then fine and this is what I usually use.