On Friday 20 February 2004 04:35 am, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
I do not think we understand each other. Let me rephrase. My position is that polymorphic function object support does not belong to the library dedicated to "functional programming", even though I propose to update boost/functional.hpp header ;))
(BTW it would really help for the whole library review, if you could provide a little introduction what is a "functional programming" in a first place; how it differ from other programming styles and what is the place of your library in this - I mean what purpose does it serve, what solution does it provide).
I think this is way out of scope for the library. Functional programming has been around for ages, and it shouldn't be up to Brian to introduce and explain all of it in his introduction.
Also after previous letter I found that you actually provide a lot more "functoids" within the library, then counterparts to the STL functional.hpp function objects. These should go in FC++ specific headers (and I mean headers - one per name).
If I need to include boost/fcpp/plus.hpp separately from boost/fcpp/minus.hpp, I'm going to very, very unhappy. I agree with breaking up large components intro multiple headers, but when we get 20 headers with 10 lines of code in them each, all related, we've gone too far. Doug