On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
I hope you're not just being facetious here.
For example, why is there a difference with respect to Boost.Algorithm so to be specific.
Anyway, I shall indulge you.
My understanding is that you'd answer: 1) Because Boost.Algorithm all_of is useful but Boost.Local local functions are not.
Good guess, but no cigar. Boost.Algorithm collects the C++11 algorithms and makes them available to C++03 *as is*. Boost.Local attempts to implement something that C++11 lambda's are perfectly capable of doing and there are already existing libraries that approximate C++11 lambdas in Boost (and do even more). Boost.Local even has an overlap with Boost.Scoped_exit. In general terms: * back-port is exactly what it means, bringing code that's written for a future version of software (usually libraries and/or software packages) to a previous version as an enhancement. * drop-in approximations are solutions that approximate functionality in a future version to a previous version (like Boost.Move for example, in C++03 it performs some tricks that are otherwise unnecessary in C++11, but in C++11 mode can just forward to std::move without losing semantics). Boost.Local is *neither* of these.
2) Because Boost.Algorithm all_of uses exactly the same API as C++11 while Boost.Local uses macros.
No. See above.
Is my understanding correct?
No.
Is there more?
Yes, but I rather not elaborate as I really want to crawl under a rock now. Cheers -- Dean Michael Berris http://goo.gl/CKCJX