Boost logo

Boost :

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
>>and implementations
>>2. Function composition
>>3. Argument binding
>>4. A far-thinking design for metafunctions which will probably allow a
>>meta-lambda facility
>>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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at