Brian McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:38:01PM +0200, Miroslav Silovic wrote: >> Well, nobody posted anything definite on FC++, which is a pity, since I >> find this library potentially very useful. Here are some comments. >> Caveat: I haven't extensively used the library, but I have quite a bit >> of experience with functional programming. I won't comment on the naming >> scheme or the docs - that was covered in the original post. > > I expect the docs are a big issue (as David Abrahams commented); most of > the docs on the web site are aimed at an audience of researchers in > functional programming. Over the next couple of weeks I will make > documentation of the boostified version of FC++ that's aimed at a C++ > audience. Hopefully that will help.
That'd be great, but you could help us all along quite a bit by just posting (links to) definitions of the specialized terms you use. That would be a lot more expedient and I know it would be enough to get me to evaluate FC++. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
