Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-04 12:00:32
On 04/02/2011 05:04, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> You've just scratched the surface, and IMO, learned about the library in
> a way that I would not advice. To be honest, I never liked bind -- not a
> bit. If I did it my way, I'd write small modular phoenix functions
> just like you would in C++ or any FP language, but are fully curryable
> and lazy.
While Phoenix integrates very well with PFOs and operators, not so much
with functions and structures.
Forcing all C++ users to exclusively use PFOs is unrealistic; it also
adds significant compile-time overhead compared to the use of template
or overloaded functions.
That notwithstanding, I'm still writing a source-to-source compiler
where the target is C++ and all functions are PFOs, since that's
required for functional programming in C++.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk