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

Subject: Re: [boost] Rave for proposed Boost.Local (functions)
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-05 08:05:18

On 05/02/2011 13:42, Joel de Guzman wrote:

> I think his argument is that with lambda expressions, the code is
> at the call site. However, I'd also argue that for more complex
> code spanning several statements, it is good practice to refactor
> them into their own functions. Overly complex lambda functions are
> a poor form.

So Boost.Phoenix self-acknowledges that it can only be used to write 
trivial things?

In functional programming, there is no difference between defining 
lambdas and functions (except the former cannot be recursive), and it is 
not viewed as bad practice to have functions spanning a couple hundred 
lines.