From: joel de guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-12 12:08:42
----- Original Message -----
From: "Powell, Gary" :
> Did I miss something, or is mpl up for review? Because there are a lot
> of mpl reviews being posted.
> Did I miss that Loki is up for review? Because its being compared to a
> library which hasn't been released.
> I had thought that Andrei asked for help, and I did volunteer some time,
> and last I looked I was on the boost page.
> Its really unfair to the library developers to have to justify every
> nuance of the implementation if they aren't really ready.
> Is there some hard rule that boost can't have two typelists? Why do we
> have to have one mega all encompassing solution to all problems? Isn't
> it possible to have a simpler typelist and a complex one? Screws and
> nails, each has a use.
> Also when we criticize libraries, we really come down hard on
> implementation and it seems to me that we forget about the interface,
> which as a user of a library is much more important.
Pardon me if I added more confusion here. The truth is, I really
wanted to help. I wanted to know if there is a way to *cleanly*
factor out the intrinsic core of MPL for reuse by another library.
In particular, if this MPL core can be a common library for Loki
as well, we wouldn't be arguing about which is better. In my opinion,
we can have both (and more: such as my ideal Haskellish algorithms
interface). This was my real intent.
Nevertheless, I would be very willing to help in any way I can.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk