[parameter] missing link in main page and libraries.htm?
Can't find links to Boost.Parameter docs from the main page or libraries.htm. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
--- David Abrahams wrote:
Which categories should it go in?
Try "Containers" and/or "Miscellaneous". Cromwell D. Enage __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cromwell Enage <sponage@yahoo.com> writes:
How does it fit in "containers?" I'd vote for "Generic Programming" and "Miscellaneous." I think we should have a "Functional Programming" category and it should go in there, too. We have more components designed to operate on functions and function objects every day. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Oh, I see we do have "Function objects and higher-order programming." Well, now. Looking at "Miscellaneous" I think too many libraries are in there. IMO a library should only go in that category if it doesn't fit anywhere else. Thoughts? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
--- David Abrahams wrote:
How does it fit in "containers?"
Implementation-wise, the named-parameter mechanism is a type of container, conceptually an "argument pack". Past implementations, including the one used by the BGL, can also be thought of as ad-hoc containers.
If you want to make a new category, I'd go for "Patterns and Idioms". Boost.Parameter can be described as a mechanism that encapsulates the named-parameter idiom <http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.18> as well as the unnamed-parameter idiom (wherever that's described). The Singleton library, if and when it's accepted, can also fit in this category. Cromwell D. Enage __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cromwell Enage <sponage@yahoo.com> writes:
The implementation details are irrelevant to the user who wants to find a library for a specific purpose, and anyway...
the named-parameter mechanism is a type of container,
...not really. It bundles up references to the arguments, but it doesn't contain them.
Maybe. It seems awfully general to me. Why group patterns and idioms together? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
--- David Abrahams wrote:
Okay.
IMHO, as far as a programmer is concerned, they do the same thing: encapsulate most of the tedious steps required to reuse a programming technique. If that sounds like "Generic Programming", then perhaps that's where Boost.Parameter belongs. In another email:
Then put it under "UI building" also ;) Cromwell D. Enage ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Cromwell Enage wrote:
--- David Abrahams wrote:
I think "parameters" lib falls under a new category: "Programming Interfaces". The planned boost.interface library also falls under this category, as do boost::function (perhaps). Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
David Abrahams wrote:
Cool! I looked at the libraries and thought enable_if might be a good addition to Programming Interfaces. enable_if - Selective inclusion of function template overloads, from Jaakko Järvi, Jeremiah Willcock, and Andrew Lumsdaine. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
David Abrahams wrote:
Nah, I wouldn't insist on it ;-).. unless someone else concurs. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
David Abrahams ha escrito:
I fail to see what Boost.Parameter has to do with generic programming.
Again, I don't see how the lib is related to functional programming. To me, Boost.Parameter sports a special kind of syntactic sugar, so I'd add an "Idioms" (or something like that) category grouping: - parameter - base-from-member - utility - perhaps, compressed_pair Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin@tid.es> writes:
When you look at the Graph library, a generic programming tour de force, I think it becomes more apparent.
The category I'm thinking of is not exactly "functional programming" so much as "building and using function interfaces." As I wrote, We have more components designed to operate on functions and function objects every day.
This looks like "misc" to me. I see no particular association among those. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (4)
-
Cromwell Enage -
David Abrahams -
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz -
Joel de Guzman