Subject: Re: [boost] Case study: Boost.Local versus Boost.Phoenix
From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-06 07:20:45
Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Kenny Riddile <kfriddile_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 2/4/2011 3:39 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
> >> Anyway, I'm just going to wait for C++0x lambdas.
> > +10000
I came to the same conclusion 3 years ago and stopped working on
BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION. This was a wrong decision. I'm glad that
Lorenzo is working on the library.
> Sorry, there is not point in me waiting for C++0x because I can only
> use standard C++ in my application domain :((
> I am sure in 10+ years a new embedded platform will come along with
> C++0x... well, I am not sure but I hope so. However, for now, I am
> "stock" with C++ (even pure C++ compliant preprocessor and template
> metaprogramming tricks are seen suspiciously in this domain because it
> is not clear if suppliers really test for them even if they are part
> of the C++ standard...).
Lorenzo, can you use typeof (sorry, if you already use it in the
implementation, I've not looked at it yet) and variadic macros?
BTW, how widely variadic macros are supported nowadays?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk