Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 01:25:23

On 11/25/2011 12:05 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Heller
> <thom.heller_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>> On 11/24/2011 10:55 PM, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>>> From: thom.heller_at_[hidden]
>>> Besides:
>>> That's a neat idea, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to this discussion.
>>> Those who are objecting to Boost.Local are not objecting on the basis that
>>> the generated function object is not a Phoenix function...
>> You are of course right, the first two links are not about local function
>> definitions. However, the third link proposes a solution that should bring
>> everyone together: Local functions combined with the power of Phoenix.
> Actually, I'm confused as well, Thomas. I wouldn't have thought that
> making the local functions generated by Lorenzo's Local macros could have
> addressed your previously expressed objections to Local. Granted, there's
> been a lot of discussion and I may have missed something. Care to clarify?

Well, the idea was to find a consensus. People obviously want to have
local functions. I was trying to find a solution that somehow get rid of
some of my objections, mainly verbosity of the local function
declarations. The complexity mainly comes due to the need to capture
variables in scope. By generating a local phoenix function, which can be
used in regular phoenix expressions, which can capture variables in
scope very natural (just pass them as function parameters). I am still
not happy that we need macros to declare (local) functions, but i guess
that is what it takes.

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