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

Subject: Re: [boost] Rave for proposed Boost.Local (functions)
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-05 18:32:06

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Joel de Guzman
<joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2/6/11 1:03 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> Plus, how would local variables and local classes look in
>> Boost.Pheenix? In Boost.Local it's like in normal C++:
>>
>>           BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(
>>               (void) (add)(
>>                   (double)(num)
>>                   (const bind)((factor))
>>                   (bind)((&sum))
>>               )
>>           ) {
>>               const std::string msg = "Summed: "; // A const local var.
>>               struct text { std::string say; } // A local struct.
>>               test t; // A local var.
>>               t.say = msg;
>>
>>               sum += factor * num;
>>               std::clog<<  t.say<<    sum<<    std::endl;
>>           } BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_END(add)
>>           add(100.0);
>>
>> How would this look in Boost.Phoenix? I wish I knew Phoenix better :)
>> so I could provide the answers myself...
>
> Look, let us please stop this syntax nonsense. As mentioned,
> phoenix can have all those above (pure c++ function syntax,
> local classes, local variables, etc.) in the form of offline
> phoenix::function. Why offline? I argue, and I am sure many
> agree, that overly complex inlined lambdas add clutter to the
> enclosing function. Local function emulation is at best a poor
> rendition of what it should be anyway (e.g. like Pascal's local
> function) since it doesn't have direct access to the enclosing
> scope and thus have to resort to argument binding and some such
> and add *A LOT* of clutter.
>
> At any rate, I repeatedly say: I am not against Boost.Local. As I
> said, in as much as we have BOOST_FOREACH and std::bind, I see no
> reason why we can't have Boost.Local.

Agreed. I think we discussed the syntax stuff enough. (Sorry but I
wrote the email above before reading the related discussions in Greg's
"Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix" so my comments were out
of sync with the status of the discussion :) .)

-- 
Lorenzo