Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 06:11:54
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Dean Michael Berris
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> b) Other libraries like the recently reviewed Boost.Algorithm and
>> Boost.Atomic implement C++11 features for C++03. I would expect the
>> ability of Boost.Local to implement C++11 named lambdas (i.e., local
>> functions) for C++03 to be just as valuable. Why wouldn't it?
> There's a difference between a back-port like in the case of
> Boost.Algorithm, Boost.Atomic, and Boost.Unique_ptr, drop-in
> (forwardable) approximations like Boost.Move, and a very narrow and
> marginally useful approximation like what Boost.Local provides. Does
> that make it clearer?
No, it is not clear to me why you think that there a difference. Can
you please list your arguments? For example, why is there a difference
with respect to Boost.Algorithm so to be specific.
My understanding is that you'd answer:
1) Because Boost.Algorithm all_of is useful but Boost.Local local
functions are not.
2) Because Boost.Algorithm all_of uses exactly the same API as C++11
while Boost.Local uses macros.
Is my understanding correct? Is there more?
Thanks a lot.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk