Re: [boost] [local] name (was Re: "protected" APIs)

Subject: Re: [boost] [local] name (was Re: "protected" APIs)
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-16 09:12:54

on Mon Jan 16 2012, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Thomas Klimpel
> <Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>>> > On 01/02/2012 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>> > > Hello all,
>>> > >
>>> > > Boost.Closure (formerly, Boost.Local) needs to use some macros,
>
>>> types,
>>> > > etc that are currently marked private in Boost.ScopeExit:
>>> >
>>> > Boost.Closure? I really don't like that name is at implies functional
>>> > programming capabilities. Didn't you decide to name it
>>> Boost.LocalFunction
>>> > instead?
>>>
>>> I second that concern. I wouldn't like for the local function library
>>> to
>>> claim the name 'closure'.
>>> This would be
>>>
>>> Â  Â a) totally misleading and
>>> Â  Â b) inhibits to give that name to a potential real closure library in
>>> the
>>> future.
>>
>> +1
>
> As I said before, I'm equally happy with Boost.LocalFunction and
> Boost.Closure. I'm checking with my review manager about going back
> from Closure to LocalFunction given that a few people have now
> expressed such a preference. I'll keep everyone posted :)

Given that C++ is not, and will never be, a language where everything is
GC'd, I think the name "Closure" is not too much of a stretch.

I'd like to know what features people think a "real" closure library
should have in C++.  If that set of features is actually implementable,
maybe it makes sense to reserve the name.  Otherwise, I'm not so sure.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com