David Abrahams wrote:
on Fri Dec 07 2007, shunsuke <pstade.mb-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
John Torjo wrote:
Hi all,
The formal review of the Boost.Functional/Forward library, proposed by Tobias Schwinger, begins today :
Boost.Functional/Forward provides decorator function objects to have an n-ary, generic function object accept both RValues and mutable LValues. Sorry, this is not a review. Ignore this if irrelevant.
Was boost::detail::functionN family in Boost.Accumulators considered? That seems more advanced than Boost.Functional/Forward.
FWIW, starting from Abrahams' callable and functionN, I've been implementing a similar library: http://tinyurl.com/vd4r5 , which regards Boost.Functional/Forward facility as one of higher-order functions, `perfect`.
Hmm. Did anyone reply to this?
Yes, but for some odd reason my reply neither reached the list nor my 'Sent' folder (I probably missed a local error message).
I think if someone points to an alternative library with that level of maturity during a review, it shouldn't be ignored.
I certainly did not ignore it as I picked it up in another post: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/32368
We should at least have a discussion of the relative merits of the two approaches before taking a vote.
I don't see a problem for "Egg" to use "Forward"... Regards, Tobias