On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Thomas Klimpel <Thomas.Klimpel@synopsys.com> wrote:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
What are you talking about?
There's *exactly* the same number of lines in a local function as there is with a class/namespace function. What am I missing?
I'm actually also asking myself what I'm missing. Everybody seems to claim that a namespace function provides the same functionality as a local function.
I know that I can use a "namespace functor" (i.e. a class that implements an "operator()" member function) instead of a local function. I guess I could also use Boost.Phoenix (or a similar library) to adapt a "namespace function" to provide the same functionality as a local function.
Should I understand the claim that a "namespace function" provides the same functionality as Boost.Local in this way, or is there something simpler that I'm missing?
namespace foo { void function_bar(int a, int b) { // do something with a & b } void function_baz() { function_bar(1, 2); } } as opposed to: namespace foo { void function_baz() { BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(function_bar, (int a), (int b)) { // do something with a & b } BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_END function_bar(1, 2); } } It's not that complicated. The first approach is the way we've been doing it with normal C++. It works. It's not broken. I don't see why we'd ever need Boost.Local at all. Cheers -- Dean Michael Berris http://goo.gl/CKCJX