lcaminiti wrote:
Thomas Heller-7 wrote
Boost.Closure? [snip] I really don't like that name is at implies functional programming capabilities. Didn't you decide to name it Boost.LocalFunction instead?
I'm equally happy with LocalFunciton or Closure. My review manager and one of the reviewers expressed a strong preference for Closure because a shorter name and more to the point of the library purpose so I'm adopting that name.
I have to admit that Boost.Local_Function sounds like a nice name to me, especially if the library implements "only" local functions. If local blocks and local exits would still be part of the library, I could understand why Boost.Closure might also be attractive, but I thought... But if you want to stress that the local functions created by the library can be returned easily from a function without taking special precautions (I don't know whether this is actually true), then Boost.Closure might not be a bad name after all. Regards, Thomas