Subject: Re: [boost] [local] name (was Re: "protected" APIs)
From: lcaminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-21 11:05:33
Dave Abrahams wrote
> 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@> 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,
>>>> > > 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
>>>> > instead?
>>>> I second that concern. I wouldn't like for the local function library
>>>> 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
>> 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'm happy to inform that I confirmed with my review manager that everyone
considers Boost.LocalFunction an acceptable name so I'm going back from
Boost.Closure to Boost.LocalFunction.
> 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.
I still would like to second this request (regardless of the library name, I
might be able to make local functions support the features if we have such a
list, for now C++11 lambda closure definition has been my benchmark). In
other words, reiterating a question I asked before in this thread (but got
no answer to):
> Thomas Heller-7 wrote
>> On 01/02/2012 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>> I really don't like that name is at implies functional programming
>> For example, I programmed all the examples from the link* above using my
>> library. Is there an example of what you'd expect to do with a C++
>> closure that cannot instead be programmed with my library?
Thanks a lot,
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/local-name-was-Re-protected-APIs-tp4299542p4316313.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk