Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 11:32:38
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dean Michael Berris
> <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I (and maybe others as well who follow the same logic I follow) don't
>> see a large enough gap between C++11 lambdas and
>> Boost.Phoenix/Lambda/Bind function objects that merits being addressed
>> by local functions. Until you can convince us that local functions are
>> "absolutely necessary" and that C++ should have it because it makes
>> certain programming paradigms/techniques possible, I'm afraid what you
>> have is a solution that's looking for a problem.
> 1) I don't think I have to convince anyone. Following Boost process, I
> have first asked for interest in the library about ~1year ago plus all
> the reviewers have answered the question:
>> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> With that information I am confident that the review manager will be
> able to assess the library usefulness taking into consideration the
> opinion of /all/ the people that reviewed the library.
Actually, you kinda have to convince people -- especially now that
questions have been raised by members of the community, both in the
review and on this thread. There have been "non-inclusion" votes
already sent in. I'll throw my hat into that side of the ring too now
if it's not too late and too much work to write a review.
> 2) As for local functions, namespace, or global structs see N2511. If
> you disagree with N2511 arguments, it's truly OK because IMO everyone
> is free to use whatever idiom they see fit for themselves and their
> problem domain. I am sure the library reviewers had namespaces and
> global structs in mind when they assessed the "potential usefulness of
> the library" (also because these are mentioned in the library docs).
> So also in this case /all/ submitted reviews should allow the review
> manager to come to a conclusion on this issue.
Sure, but again I don't see what's in N2511 that's not doable with
So in no uncertain terms am I expressing my opinion in the context of
this thread that for libraries like Local, *no*, this should not be a
library but rather should be a proper language extension for it to
provide any real advantage over whatever is already out there and
especially what's already in C++11.
> 3) [MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL] This thread is about "should new libraries
> implementing C++11 features in C++03" be considered for admission in
> Boost or not. It's not about the usefulness of Local, namespace,
> struct, Phoenix, etc. Let's all try to provide the review manager with
> this piece of information about C++11, C++03, and Boost.
But I've already done that part -- see my first response.
I responded to your post because you brought up the comparison with
Phoenix. I don't know if you noticed but the context of my whole reply
was exactly that, the relationship between C++11, C++03, and Boost
where the case in point is the Local library under review.
-- Dean Michael Berris http://goo.gl/CKCJX
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk