Re: [boost] "protected" APIs

Subject: Re: [boost] "protected" APIs
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-16 09:10:19

on Mon Jan 16 2012, Thomas Klimpel <Thomas.Klimpel-AT-synopsys.com> 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
>
> Or more precisely, just ignoring mails questioning the name
> Boost.Closure is not good style. In a functional programming language,
> many things can be done with a closure (for example returning it from
> a function), and it is unclear to me, whether Boost.Local really is
> able to approximate this functionality in a sufficiently usable
> way. It might be true, but then please point me to the corresponding
> passage in the documentation.

I think at this point the horse has left the barn.  Whatever closure
means to the FP community, C++11 has set a precedent by using the term
to describe the objects created by lambda expressions.

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