Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vesa Karvonen (vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-28 12:09:23

From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> It's not a bad idea, but mpl has some specific idioms which need some
> examination. For example, in mpl, a metafunction is spelled this way:
> struct function
> {
> template <class T, ...>
> struct apply
> {
> typedef ... type;
> static ... const value = ...;
> };
> };

Wow! If this is true, then it might not be necessary for me to continue much
work on my TMPL document, but here is a short excerpt anyway. I wrote the
original document in July. Personally I'd rather get rid of values and use
only types in the library primitives. The values are only interesting to C++

Another issue I had with MPL is that it combined an applicative function and
state into a single parameter for higher order functions, like is done STL.
Personally I would most definitely separate the two like is usually done in

Ýet another issue in MPL was the insistence on STL like iterators.

But... I need to take a closer look at MPL now.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at