From: David A. Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-12 18:30:13
Mark Rodgers wrote:
> I don't think there is any need for two pretty much identical typelists
> and I fervently hope that we don't end up with two.
Me too, but if two are needed, then we should have two.
> algortithms, and I don't particularly care how MPL algorithms are
> implemented as long as I can use them easily, particularly with MSVC*.
Absolutely. Andrei's point, I think, is that writing new MPL
algorithms is difficult -- more difficult than it needs to be.
I'm not sure what his position is on existing MPL algorithms.
> Andrei, your opposition to MPL really smacks of NIH syndrome.
Not at all.
> I really do hope that you can bring yourself to use someone else's
> code and contribute parts of Loki built on top of MPL. What harm
> could it do?
His concern is with the core philosophy of MPL. I can only relate
my personal experience, but I know that whenever I've seen an MPL
algorithm, I've had to contort my brain a fair amount to figure out
how it worked. Right now I can forget about writing new MPL
algorithms. I write STL algorithms all the time. Granted, there
was a learning curve for STL so maybe I am not giving MPL the
benefit of the doubt it deserves. But then again, I don't have
access to complete and correct MPL documentation like I did for
To me, "functional programming/recursion" and "iteration" is an
But I haven't had much time to really look over MPL so take
everything I've said with a huge grain of salt.
-- "Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music, and you know how big he was." -- James P. Johnson
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk