Re: [Review] Phoenix review starts today, September 21st

Loïc Joly wrote:
> Hartmut Kaiser a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The review of Joel de Guzmans and Dan Marsdens Phoenix V2 library starts
>> today, September 21st 2008, and will end on September 30th. I really 
>> hope to see your vote and your participation in the discussions on
>> the Boost mailing lists!
> Some questions that a very quick look at the doc did not answer (please 
> point me to the right place if such a place exists):
> 
> - If this library is accepted, will that make other boost libraries 
> deprecated? (from the introduction, I'm thinking of function, lambda and 
> bind, maybe some others?)

boost.function:

    No. phoenix has no such facility. Don't confuse
    with phoenix.function.

boost.bind:

    No. bind has its place. It's light(er) and is sufficient
    for many tasks. At the very least we should work towards a unification
    of the placeholders and interoperability.

boost.lambda:

    Depends. The original plan was for a Lambda/Phoenix merger
    with Phoenix2 as the basis. Eseentially, it is possible for Phoenix2(3)
    to be the new Lambda. I outlined a plan sometime ago:

     >> One of the obstacles towards merger is that Lambda has some
     >> quirks of its own that makes it difficult to provide full backwards
     >> compatibility. Eric ported Phoenix 2.0 to proto, making it Phoenix
     >> 3.0. In the course of the development, Eric and I seem to both
     >> coming to the conclusion that the best route is to leave the
     >> Lambda codebase alone and make Phoenix 3.0 the new lambda
     >> (i.e. lambda 2.0). And, similar to what we did with Spirit2,
     >> we can have an interim release that bundles both the old lambda
     >> and the new. With this approach, code that uses Lambda should
     >> should not do anything special. Users who want to take advantage
     >> of the features of Lambda-2 (aka Phoenix) can upgrade with some
     >> minimal code tweaks. If this is an acceptable solution to all
     >> parties involved (Jaakko?)

     Yes, Jaakko is in agreement with this approach:

     Jaakko:
     > My first reply didn't make it to the list.
     > Yes, this would be a good arrangement.

Regards,
--

-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost