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? I think if someone points to an alternative library with that level of maturity during a review, it shouldn't be ignored. We should at least have a discussion of the relative merits of the two approaches before taking a vote.
I think the Egg library is awesome. Is it in the review queue yet? If not, it should be. My opinion here is that it can co-exist with the Forward library just as boost.bind can coexist with boost.lambda. It's not always a matter of which is more sophisticated. Certainly, bind is a subset of lambda. Yet, even with the simplicity of bind, it is sufficiently useful in many applications. I'd say the same for Egg and Boost.Functional. Let's have more FP in C++! :-) Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net