Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
What exactly is missing from C++11 lambdas for them to be useful as local functions?
void foo() { auto f = [](){ cout << "Hey, I'm a local function!\n"; } f(); }
Why do we need Boost.Local instead?
I've looked a a few posts on this thread and I think I see what the issue is. a local function is something that almost any C program can understand without embarking on a significant amount of study to understand a whole new syntax. The functionality is transparent and verifiable to anyone who looks it. This is true even though its more verbose. (or maybe its true BECAUSE it's more verbose.) When I see auto f = [](){ cout << "Hey, I'm a local function!\n"; } Now I have to embark upon a mini-research project to learn of bunch of new stuff that I didn't know before in order to do something that could easily be done the "old fashioned" way. OK you say I should bone up on the new stuff anyway. Maybe, but in reality there's a couple of other things going on. a) in my company we might not be using a compiler which supports these latest features. b) I maybe under huge pressure to address something before business opens tomorrow (this is common for me). So I don't have time for an un-anticipated diversion. c) When In insert something like this, it will eventually get reviewed by other programmers who really need to be able to understand something right away when they look at it. So I don't seen any real conflict between the local function lambda one. I've I'm crafting the next greatest boost library where I have as much time as necessary to get it exactly optimal I might use one while under other circumstances I might prefer something that everyone can swallow without problem. Robert Ramey