Boost logo

Boost :

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 <> 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
>>>    a) totally misleading and
>>>    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

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