From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-27 18:18:08
--- David Abrahams wrote:
> Cromwell Enage writes:
> > Implementation-wise,
>
> The implementation details are irrelevant to the
user
> who wants to find a library for a specific purpose,
Okay.
> > 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.
>
> Maybe. It seems awfully general to me. Why group
> patterns and idioms together?
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:
> The category I'm thinking of is not exactly
> "functional programming" so much as "building and
> using function interfaces."
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