on Mon Jan 16 2012, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Thomas Klimpel <Thomas.Klimpel@synopsys.com> wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
On 01/02/2012 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
Hello all,
Boost.Closure (formerly, Boost.Local) needs to use some macros,
types,
etc that are currently marked private in Boost.ScopeExit:
Boost.Closure? I really don't like that name is at implies functional programming capabilities. Didn't you decide to name it Boost.LocalFunction instead?
I second that concern. I wouldn't like for the local function library to claim the name 'closure'. This would be
a) totally misleading and b) inhibits to give that name to a potential real closure library in the future.
+1
As I said before, I'm equally happy with Boost.LocalFunction and Boost.Closure. I'm checking with my review manager about going back from Closure to LocalFunction given that a few people have now expressed such a preference. I'll keep everyone posted :)
Given that C++ is not, and will never be, a language where everything is GC'd, I think the name "Closure" is not too much of a stretch. I'd like to know what features people think a "real" closure library should have in C++. If that set of features is actually implementable, maybe it makes sense to reserve the name. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com