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

Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Kenny Riddile (kfriddile_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-04 15:43:39

On 2/4/2011 3:39 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
>
> No, it's not only you. I'd probably write something like that if a
> simple bind(&fn,_1) were insufficient.
>
> The main complaint about that from the advocates of both Pheonix and
> Local seems to be that it's too far from the point of use. Well, I have
> to ask how big your functions are, and if they're huge, why? Also do you
> dislike code like this:
>
> void f1(args) { ........ }
>
> void my_big_fn() {
> ....
> ....
> ....
> f1(a); // using a function only to avoid duplicating the
> f1(b); // same code for a and b.
> ....
> }
>
> because the definition of f1 is far from where it's used? Would you
> countenance using a macro instead:?
>
> #define f1(arg) ....
> f1(a);
> f1(b);
>
> Perhaps it comes down to this: we're used to functions being relatively
> far from where they're used because it has always been like that, but we
> think of these lambda expressions as taking the place of the body of a
> loop, and we're not used to that being out-of-line.
>
> Anyway, I'm just going to wait for C++0x lambdas.

+10000