Boost logo

Boost :

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:
> 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)

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.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at