Re: [boost] Metaprogramming observations

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-15 12:51:17

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>

> However our particular domain (compile-time metaprogramming) is very close
> to the "ideal", academic pure functional language, since the "impure",
> "real world" features are more than adequately implemented by the
> traditional C++.
> So it makes sense to base a compile-time metaprogramming library on
> "classic" Lisp.

I don't buy that argument: "traditional C++" doesn't give us anything at
compile time. I would think a stronger argument would be that we should use
a "pure functional" style because template programs are "pure functional" by
constraint. I'm not sure whether I buy that one either, but I think it's a
proposition worth considering.

-Dave