Re: [boost] [local] Any "active Boost library author" in favor of Boost.Local?

Subject: Re: [boost] [local] Any "active Boost library author" in favor of Boost.Local?
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 12:18:46

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Vicente Botet
<vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think that most of us would admit that local functions are useful, but as
> discussed during the review, Boost.Local doesn't provides local functions.
> The missing features been:
> * implicit access to the accessible variables

Yes, in the example below you explicitly have to say "bind this".

> * access to the non public functions of the embedding class (in case of a
> local function of a member function).

Can you explain this point better? This example shows that you can
access public, protected, and private members of a bound object (from
within a member of the same class):

#include <boost/local/function.hpp>
#include <iostream>

struct x {
    void f() {
        void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_PARAMS(bind this) {
            this_->priv();
            this_->prot();
            this_->publ();
        } BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_NAME(l)
        l();
    }

public:
    void publ() { std::cout << "public" << std::endl; }
protected:
    void prot() { std::cout << "protected" << std::endl; }
private:
    void priv() { std::cout << "private" << std::endl; }
};

int main ( ) {
    x xx;
    xx.f();
    return 0;
}

Thanks a lot for the clarification.
--Lorenzo