3 ms·

I think a lot can be rewritten with boost::lambda or boost::proto without being too obscure.

• scott_s 16y ago
  I played with boost::lambda, and I found the resulting code less clear than a simple for loop. I also had difficulty gaining an intuition for what I could and could not do with it. Rather than constantly asking myself "Can I use boost::lambda here...? Will it look better or worse than the alternative?" I just decided to never use it. While I prefer a functional style of coding, I recognized that it was silly to adhere to it if doing so made my code worse - C++'s support for what I wanted to do just wasn't there. If what I wanted to accomplish was several lines of code, I wrote a separate function or function object. If it was brief and I could not express it with combinations of existing functions, then I just wrote a for loop. I didn't play with boost::proto, so I can't comment on that. But! C++ has real lambdas now. So, problem solved. (Once the compilers catch up.)
• lutorm 16y ago
  Like the other post said, I really wanted boost::lambda to work. However, I found that anything more complicated than "_1 * 2.0" became write-only code, so in practice it was useless.