On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Michael and thank you for bring my attention back to your original reply on this topic.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
So applying my logic to the discussion on Boost.Local, I see it as doing a not-so-good job of doing #1
Let me understand better your point. Is this because Boost.Local functions cannot be declared within expressions while C++11 lambdas can?
Yes and a lot more. It's because Boost.Local functions aren't real local functions and because it doesn't do anything that C++11 lambdas don't already do.
while falling short in #2. If
Again, let me understand your point better. Is this because Boost.Local functions use macros?
Not just that. It's also because it's trying to approximate something limited as compared to what C++11 already has.
a) OK, I think I understand. My reply if that if Boost.Local does not approximate well C++11 lambdas because it cannot be define within expressions, it instead approximates well named lambdas which are closures defined at declaration scope: int a; auto localf = [&a](int z) { ... // lots of instructions here }; This C++11 construct is well approximated by the following in C++03: int a; void BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION(int z, bind& a) { ... // lots of instructions here } BOOST_LOCAL_FUNCTION_END(localf) b) Other libraries like the recently reviewed Boost.Algorithm and Boost.Atomic implement C++11 features for C++03. I would expect the ability of Boost.Local to implement C++11 named lambdas (i.e., local functions) for C++03 to be just as valuable. Why wouldn't it? Thanks. --Lorenzo