Subject: Re: [boost] Rave for proposed Boost.Local (functions)
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-06 05:22:29
On 2/6/11 7:32 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Joel de Guzman
>> 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.
Of course I meant: BOOST_FOREACH and std::for_each.
Sorry if that was confusing.
> 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 :) .)
Not a problem at all. Good luck with your library. I'm all
for it. Please keep an open mind on alternate syntax though.
We might have something similar for phoenix function so I'll
be very keen on uniformity of syntax.
-- 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