Boost logo

Boost :

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at