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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk