Re: [boost] [fusion]variadic template implications forcontainers(was Re: Variadic Templates Redux

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-27 19:23:44

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:871wpxi1vb.fsf_at_pereiro.luannocracy.com...
> "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:87wt7pjr73.fsf_at_pereiro.luannocracy.com...
>>>
>>> Variadics is a separate feature from what ConceptGCC provides.  I know
>>> variadics are generating a lot of well-earned excitement, but think
>>> ConceptGCC really deserves more attention.
>>
>> Sure, but  I for one have some trepidation about applying Concepts to
>> everything. The main issue  that worries me is that checking everything is 
>> going
>> to be very slow.
>
> You seem to have that concern often, and often prematurely.

I often have that concern and often it's true :-).
In the case of Fusion. I need the library to create matrices which work with 
types other than double.

>
>> And I am not sure I totally agree.
>
> If you're disagreeing, I think it's because I wasn't clear.  I meant
> that "ConceptGCC really deserves more attention than it is currently
> getting."

OK. The first question is... why?  I think I can answer that for myself, but 
what is in it for the broader audience?

For myself an important issue is that I am, due to inertia, compiler bound. I 
love VC7.1. I love the IDE. (IIRC you call this ' screen scraping', but that's 
your problem).  So that is a hurdle that ConceptGCC has to face for someone like 
me. I have my "comp.bat" file set up for checking that stuff compiles with gcc, 
but for effortless coding, I head straight for VC7.1.  IOW your compiler/IDE has 
a great deal of power over what you do

And , maybe  ConceptGCC has  a similar 'problem'(It's not really a problem) to 
the one I have with Quan, but probably more severe, in that most people are 
bound to old C style  libraries, which frankly don't have a hope of compiling 
with ConceptGCC, due to the average *useful* 'Hack' optimisation's that have 
been applied. It's simply inertia again.

I think what C++ needs most of all, is a standard GUI, because  with that, it 
would be easy to plug ConceptGCC, the compiler, into a standard IDE. And with a 
standard IDE, it would be quite easy to apply a couple of switches to switch 
compilers...

So, of all the libraries that C++ should have, I think that a standard GUI is 
the most important, because it would be so much easier to try out and 
demonstrate major changes to C++.

Simply put, ConceptGCC needs a nice UI to show it off, and its a bit sad that 
C++ has no way to provide that.

I guess that is the root of the problem.

( And I am currently concerned with trying to make some inroads into that 
problem)

regards
Andy Little