From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-10 16:27:58
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing facts with judgement. Let's
> > for something a little less subjective. Iteration in the classic
> > is, in fact, impossible. There is no such thing as mutable state, so
> > can't make a loop counter.
> Why does the draft documentation feature a "mutating algorithms"
That's the basis of a conceptual disagreement between Aleksey and
myself. There's obviously no such thing as a mutating algorithm at
compile-time, but Aleksey thinks (I hope he won't mind the paraphrase)
that using the term "mutating" helps people to understand algorithms
which return a modified version of their input sequence. My feeling was
that it just made things more confusing.
> Or is it out of date?
Yeah, there's a secret Wiki where the real work gets done. Whether or
not to show that is up to Aleksey.
> Part of the problem with understanding MPL is that it changes so
Tell me about it. He just finished a rewrite last week on the mpl-v2
> There wasn't a fold() last time I looked. ;-)
Well, Vesa's FP arguments did in fact have quite an impact.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk