From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-28 15:25:17
At 12:40 PM 11/28/2001, Mat Marcus wrote:
>* If we reimplement the boost smart pointers in terms of Loki, and we
>reimplement Loki typelists in terms of mpl, does that meant that
>application programmers have to be mpl/Meta-STL aware when debugging
>simple scoped pointers?
That's a good question. We (and the standards committee) would have to be
sure to specify the more common pointers (scoped_ptr, auto_ptr, shared_ptr)
in a way that ensured the "as if" rule applies.
In other words, if a implementor decided to implement these common pointers
directly, rather than by typedef template, he or she should be free to do
>* I would like to see some more concrete discussion. General
>philosophizing about the merits of different libraries has a low
>signal to noise ratio.
> We have to consider both interface and
>implementation. For example, could we shed some light on the mpl
>interface by looking at some example code/use cases?
Yes, for sure. Some of the examples posted so far (Mark Rodgers'
loki::length vs mpl::size) make it look like the differences are
trivial. More examples would be very helpful.
> Perhaps some of
>Andrei's typelist applications could be rewritten in mpl to give us a
>better feel for mpl's idioms. I would also be interested in seeing
>some examples illustrating any of the facilities that Dave mentioned
>in an earlier post:
>At 7:59 PM -0500 11/27/01, David Abrahams wrote:
>>1. Algorithms can be used with different compile-time sequence
>>2. Function composition
>>3. Argument binding
>>4. A far-thinking design for metafunctions which will probably allow a
>>5. Lifts the need for the user to deal explicitly with loopn termination
>>a separate piece of code (the specialization).
>>6. A convenient way to specify type lists without macros
Yes, I'd like to see those too.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk