Subject: Re: [boost] Rave for proposed Boost.Local (functions)
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-05 08:48:24
On 2/5/11 9:05 PM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> 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?
What are you saying? Did I say that? You must be confused because
phoenix is not just about inline lambda functions, you know. There's
also phoenix function, remember?
> 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
Sure! But so what's your point?
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk