[parameter] missing link in main page and libraries.htm?
Can't find links to Boost.Parameter docs from the main page or libraries.htm. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
--- David Abrahams wrote:
Which categories should it go in?
Try "Containers" and/or "Miscellaneous". Cromwell D. Enage __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cromwell Enage <sponage@yahoo.com> writes:
--- David Abrahams wrote:
Which categories should it go in?
Try "Containers" and/or "Miscellaneous".
How does it fit in "containers?" I'd vote for "Generic Programming" and "Miscellaneous." I think we should have a "Functional Programming" category and it should go in there, too. We have more components designed to operate on functions and function objects every day. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel as well.
Cromwell Enage <sponage@yahoo.com> writes:
--- David Abrahams wrote:
Which categories should it go in?
Try "Containers" and/or "Miscellaneous".
How does it fit in "containers?"
I'd vote for "Generic Programming" and "Miscellaneous." I think we should have a "Functional Programming" category and it should go in there, too. We have more components designed to operate on functions and function objects every day.
Oh, I see we do have "Function objects and higher-order programming." Well, now. Looking at "Miscellaneous" I think too many libraries are in there. IMO a library should only go in that category if it doesn't fit anywhere else. Thoughts? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
--- David Abrahams wrote:
How does it fit in "containers?"
Implementation-wise, the named-parameter mechanism is a type of container, conceptually an "argument pack". Past implementations, including the one used by the BGL, can also be thought of as ad-hoc containers.
Oh, I see we do have "Function objects and higher-order programming." Well, now. Looking at "Miscellaneous" I think too many libraries are in there. IMO a library should only go in that category if it doesn't fit anywhere else. Thoughts?
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. Cromwell D. Enage __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Cromwell Enage <sponage@yahoo.com> writes:
--- David Abrahams wrote:
How does it fit in "containers?"
Implementation-wise,
The implementation details are irrelevant to the user who wants to find a library for a specific purpose, and anyway...
the named-parameter mechanism is a type of container,
...not really. It bundles up references to the arguments, but it doesn't contain them.
Oh, I see we do have "Function objects and higher-order programming." Well, now. Looking at "Miscellaneous" I think too many libraries are in there. IMO a library should only go in that category if it doesn't fit anywhere else. Thoughts?
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? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
--- 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
Cromwell Enage wrote:
--- David Abrahams wrote:
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 ;)
I think "parameters" lib falls under a new category: "Programming Interfaces". The planned boost.interface library also falls under this category, as do boost::function (perhaps). Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
I think "parameters" lib falls under a new category: "Programming Interfaces". The planned boost.interface library also falls under this category, as do boost::function (perhaps).
I like that one. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
I think "parameters" lib falls under a new category: "Programming Interfaces". The planned boost.interface library also falls under this category, as do boost::function (perhaps).
I like that one.
Done. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
I think "parameters" lib falls under a new category: "Programming Interfaces". The planned boost.interface library also falls under this category, as do boost::function (perhaps).
I like that one.
Done.
Cool! I looked at the libraries and thought enable_if might be a good addition to Programming Interfaces. enable_if - Selective inclusion of function template overloads, from Jaakko Järvi, Jeremiah Willcock, and Andrew Lumsdaine. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
I think "parameters" lib falls under a new category: "Programming Interfaces". The planned boost.interface library also falls under this category, as do boost::function (perhaps).
I like that one.
Done.
Cool! I looked at the libraries and thought enable_if might be a good addition to Programming Interfaces.
Debatable, but feel free to add it (on the branch and trunk) if you believe in it. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
I think "parameters" lib falls under a new category: "Programming Interfaces". The planned boost.interface library also falls under this category, as do boost::function (perhaps).
I like that one.
Done.
Cool! I looked at the libraries and thought enable_if might be a good addition to Programming Interfaces.
Debatable, but feel free to add it (on the branch and trunk) if you believe in it.
Nah, I wouldn't insist on it ;-).. unless someone else concurs. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
David Abrahams ha escrito:
Cromwell Enage <sponage@yahoo.com> writes:
--- David Abrahams wrote:
Which categories should it go in?
Try "Containers" and/or "Miscellaneous".
How does it fit in "containers?"
I'd vote for "Generic Programming"
I fail to see what Boost.Parameter has to do with generic programming.
and "Miscellaneous." I think we should have a "Functional Programming" category and it should go in there, too.
Again, I don't see how the lib is related to functional programming. To me, Boost.Parameter sports a special kind of syntactic sugar, so I'd add an "Idioms" (or something like that) category grouping: - parameter - base-from-member - utility - perhaps, compressed_pair Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
We have more components designed to operate on functions and function objects every day.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin@tid.es> writes:
David Abrahams ha escrito:
Cromwell Enage <sponage@yahoo.com> writes:
--- David Abrahams wrote:
Which categories should it go in?
Try "Containers" and/or "Miscellaneous".
How does it fit in "containers?"
I'd vote for "Generic Programming"
I fail to see what Boost.Parameter has to do with generic programming.
When you look at the Graph library, a generic programming tour de force, I think it becomes more apparent.
and "Miscellaneous." I think we should have a "Functional Programming" category and it should go in there, too.
Again, I don't see how the lib is related to functional programming.
The category I'm thinking of is not exactly "functional programming" so much as "building and using function interfaces." As I wrote, We have more components designed to operate on functions and function objects every day.
To me, Boost.Parameter sports a special kind of syntactic sugar, so I'd add an "Idioms" (or something like that) category grouping:
- parameter - base-from-member - utility - perhaps, compressed_pair
This looks like "misc" to me. I see no particular association among those. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (2)
-
Cromwell Enage -
David Abrahams -
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz -
Joel de Guzman