I don't get why broken code (whether code using Phoenix or Local) should be the basis for whether a library is superior to another as far as end-user experiences is concerned. It's broken code, it doesn't even compile!
Because I have spent more than 10 minutes figuring why Phoenix code wouldn't compile, and that hasn't happened with any other C++ library.
What's the problem with having to _think_ for 10 minutes? If you get through that experience it will take you only 9 minutes when you have to do it again. I still can't understand why people complain when they have to use their brains.
In general, when writing code programmers spend much more time with code which is either compile-time, or run-time, incorrect. If I wrote perfect code first time, then my job would be much, much easier! It is the compiler's fault, but in practice, it makes the library very, very hard to use.
If you don't love fixing bugs you're in the wrong profession.
Personally, if boost local was accepted I would expect to use it for a year or so, until I could assume people I work with all had decent C++11 compilers, and then drop it for lambdas. I'm never going to start using boost::phoenix in code I share with other people.
Great, do that. Boost.Local has not to be in Boost in order for this plan to succeed.
Is that a good enough reason to accept it into boost? I'm not completely sure.
Definitely no. Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu