Re: [boost] [local] Help for the Alternatives section

Subject: Re: [boost] [local] Help for the Alternatives section
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-28 01:44:24

On Monday, March 28, 2011 04:51:42 AM Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Thomas Heller
> <thom.heller_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2011 05:38:23 PM Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Thomas Heller
> >> <thom.heller_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, March 26, 2011 11:19:46 PM Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> >> >> Hello all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I am updating Boost.Local docs and I could use a some help in getting
> >> >> the Alternatives section right
> >> >>
> >> >
> > 
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/boost_local/Alternatives.html
> >> >
> >> > I would really like to see the first row removed ...
> >> > All alternatives you describe are using C++ syntax ... I know what you 
mean.
> > But
> >> > all the examples use regular C++ syntax.
> >>
> >> I don't think think that Boost.Lambda and Boost.Phoenix use the usual
> >> C++ syntax to program the "function" body.
> >
> > Usual is just a point of view.
> 
> Yes, "usual" it's just a point of you. I can add a footnote stating just that.
> 
> >> If you suggest a text different than "Program body using C++ syntax" I am
> >> happy to consider changing the title of the row but I think the row itself
> >> should remain there.
> >>
> >> This row indicates if the "function" body is programmed using the C++
> >> syntax that programmers normally use to program C++ function bodies
> >> (and not other C++ constructs).
> >
> > Well, still misleading. It doesn't make it invalid or "unusual" C++ syntax.
> >
> > We had this discussion before ... It is valid and legal C++. Both in syntax 
and
> > semantic.
> > The difference is that you need some extra function calls, pay attention to 
some
> > oddities etc. with phoenix and lambda. But it stays valid C++ syntax.
> 
> Yes, of course it's all valid C++ since it compiles. I can also add
> that to the footnote.

Maybe "Program body using regular C++ statements" is better suited.