Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 15:53:54
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>
>> > 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.
> More than anything, I just want to let everyone know that I'm closely
> following this thread (and related threads) to help me make a decision on
> Local. I was hoping this discussion would also clarify the position Boost
> takes on similar libraries. However, clearly, whatever decision I make is
> going to be quite polarizing, and, honestly, I don't think it's a decision
> *I* should make; the community appears to be having difficulty coming to
> anything resembling a consensus :/
> Personally, going into this review, I thought Local was a shoe-in for
> acceptance. But I feel like those against inclusion have brought up some
> very good points.
A process question: How does Boost work? Does it count the votes of
the reviewers or anyone expressing an opinion even if not submitting a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk