Re: [boost] Boost.Local Review (Nov 10, 2011 to Nov 19, 2011)

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Local Review (Nov 10, 2011 to Nov 19, 2011)
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-21 09:21:29

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti
> <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 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:
>
> After studying in details a few references:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(computer_science)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_function
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funarg_problem
> N2550, N3242
>
> I concluded that, if there are no objects, I would like to rename my
> library Boost.Closure as suggested by Andrzej:
>
> Boost.Closure
> BOOST_CLOSURE, BOOST_CLOSURE_END (for local functions with their bound
> variables)
> BOOST_CLOSURE_SCOPE_EXIT, BOOST_CLOSURE_SCOPE_EXIT_END
> BOOST_CLOSURE_BLOCK, BOOST_CLOSURE_BLOCK_END

If local exits are removed (because void and this_ binding (but not
const bindings) are added to Boost.ScopeExit) and localblocks are
removed (because not everyone sees them as useful and because they can
be trivially implemented using a local function that is called right
after being defined), then Boost.Local can be renamed simply to
Boost.LocalFunction (as suggested in some other thread). That would
make sense to me.

--Lorenzo