I would like to see if there is interest in incorporating the FC++
library into Boost.
I've glanced over the papers a bit. It seems very, very interesting. See below though.
So I am sending this mail to see:
(1) If there is still interest in adding FC++ to Boost, and
(2) If there is interest, what-all needs to be changed with the FC++ library to make it meet the standards of Boost.
With regards to (1), I hope yes, but the Boost Lambda Library has a bit of conceptual overlap with FC++, so I can imagine this issue being potentially contentious. (FC++ and Lambda ostensibly provide much of the same kinds of functionality, but while there is overlap, each library does a lot of "its own thing" too. I (and Jaakko too, probably) can say more about this if necessary.)
With regards to (2), I have been reading all the stuff on the Boost web site regarding submissions, and so I am aware of a number of issues, including:
- Reuse: FC++ "reinvents" a number of Boost's libraries in its
implementation, such as smart pointers and metaprogramming
tricks. A Boost version of FC++ should reuse Boost libraries for
this.
I agree. While FC++ probably would bring in a lot of new stuff, there is *considerable* overlap with Boost's current libraries.
On the function side there's: bind, mem_fn, compose, function, functional, and of course lambda. And then there are smart_ptr, mpl, and preprocessor.
Reusing will probably make the implementation a lot cleaner, potentially more robust, and ...
- Documentation: as of yet, there is no good singular "users guide" for
FC++ aimed at the audience of C++ programmers; I'd need to write one.
... you won't have to re-document the things that Boost already provides. ;)
- Naming conventions: FC++ uses a naming convention other than Boost's
(including systematically using capital letters in identifiers).
From what I have been able to tell in such a short time, the 'camel hump notation' is mostly used in the implementation and only slightely so in the interface. For example, things like Fun0, Fun0Impl, ... are no problem because you want to reuse Boost's facilities for these anyway. And the functiods are already 'properly' named in lowercase. Of course, there is some work to be done here, but I don't think it would be a big problem, do you?
But at this point I'm probably already getting ahead of myself. So I'll stop talking and ask people to comment with regards to "interest" in FC++.
I'd have to look deeper into it, for which I don't have the time at the moment because I'm right in the middle of my exams. But from what I've seen so far, it's pretty cool!
Regards, Dirk Gerrits
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
