On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Klimpel <Thomas.Klimpel@synopsys.com> wrote:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
There's *exactly* the same number of lines in a local function as there is with a class/namespace function. What am I missing?
I'm actually also asking myself what I'm missing. Everybody seems to claim that a namespace function provides the same functionality as a local function.
[...] It's not that complicated.
The first approach is the way we've been doing it with normal C++. It works. It's not broken.
I don't see why we'd ever need Boost.Local at all.
OK, now I understand what you are missing. An important part of the functionality of Boost.Local is to capture variables from the enclosing function. Some even argued that C++ will never have true local functions, because you still have to specify the names of the variables from the enclosing function that you want to capture.
int i; bool b; long l; auto local_function = [i, b, l](std::string const & s) { // do what I want here. } // use local_function somewhere else
Hmmm?
Or better yet, works now:
namespace foo { void non_local_function(int i, bool b, long l, std::string const & s) { // do what I want here. }
void f(std::vector<double> const &v) { int i; bool b; long l; for_each(begin(v), end(v), bind(&non_local_function, i, b, l, _1)); } }
See, no voodoo required here.
Of course, if you don't need to capture any variable from the enclosing function, using Boost.Local will only make your code more ugly.
I agree.
Now, do I still miss anything?
Again, you are missing C++03 which will make your local_function example above not compile (obviously) and which is the point of this thread. HTH, --Lorenzo