Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 06:25:28
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 11/24/2011 12:43 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>> 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 :/
> You're the review manager. You have to take
> responsibility for making this decision. No
> one else is going to do it for you, nor is Boost
> some kind of magic entity that gives reviews
> a "correct" result even when the reviewers
> vehemently disagree among themselves.
>From my participation in Boost, I noted that it has been common
practice for review managers to determine consensus counting the
reviews "yes" vs. "no" but there is no Boost guideline that states
that should be the process. Therefore, I understand if a different
process is used by the review manager to define and determine if
there's consensus around Boost.Local.
I only ask for *transparency* which means stating clearly not only the
decisions but also 1) what process was used to decide and 2) why such
a process was selected (especially if a process different from the
common vote count were to be used).
>From my records, the objection raised so far are:
1) Local functions are not useful in C++ in general.
2) Local function syntax is ugly and uses macros.
3) Local functions are made obsolete in C++11 by lambdas even if there
exist other Boost libraries that implement C++11 features for C++03.
4) For C++03 there are other solutions for local functions even if
they don't use statement syntax for the functions body.
Also from my records, all reviewers have spoken to these points. So
people that voted for inclusion have provided their counter arguments
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk