Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Local Review (Nov 10, 2011 to Nov 19, 2011)
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-16 09:34:20
> Do you have any preference?
> FUNCTION or CLOSURE?
> And also a), b1), b2), c) or d)?
> (Or something else...)
Now that I have better understood your library, my personal preference goes
towards "closure". The reason for that is:
1. "Closure" better reflects the nature of your library: you provide a tool
for defining closures: something more than functions, and something less
than lambda expressions.
2. This may make the learning of the library easier. If I know I am dealing
with closures I already expect binding functionality; there will be less
questions like "what is this 'bind' and what does it actually do?"
3. It may be a marketing bonus "closure" sounds (IMO) more attractive than
How about Boost.Closure library? "Local" may not even be necessary, because
"closure" somehow implies locality. (you do not need a global closure,
because global function will do).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk