On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
There's a difference between a back-port like in the case of Boost.Algorithm, Boost.Atomic, and Boost.Unique_ptr, drop-in (forwardable) approximations like Boost.Move, and a very narrow and marginally useful approximation like what Boost.Local provides. Does that make it clearer?
No, it is not clear to me why you think that there a difference. Can you please list your arguments? For example, why is there a difference with respect to Boost.Algorithm so to be specific. My understanding is that you'd answer: 1) Because Boost.Algorithm all_of is useful but Boost.Local local functions are not. 2) Because Boost.Algorithm all_of uses exactly the same API as C++11 while Boost.Local uses macros. Is my understanding correct? Is there more? Thanks a lot. --Lorenzo