Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Local Review (Nov 10, 2011 to Nov 19, 2011)
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-16 10:24:12
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Do you have any preference?
>> FUNCTION or CLOSURE?
>> And also a), b1), b2), c) or d)?
>> (Or something else...)
> Hi Lorenzo,
> 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).
Yes, I was thinking about it after you suggest it yesterday. I'd say
the options become:
a) Boost.Local: BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION[_END], BOOST_LOCAL_EXIT[_END],
b2) Boost.Nested: BOOST_NESTED_FUNCTION[_END],
c) Boost.Scoped: BOOST_SCOPED_FUNCTION[_END], BOOST_SCOPED_EXIT[_END],
e) Boost.Closure: BOOST_CLOSURE[_END], BOOST_CLOSURE_SCOPE_EXIT[_END],
I also like Boost.Closure (and related macro names). Maybe
BOOST_CLOSURE_SCOPE_EXIT is the only one that sounds a bit strange but
I still think it does not sound bad.
I'd like to hear opinions from other Boosters :)
Thanks for the idea!