From: joel de guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-12 23:42:27
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" :
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joel de guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
> > But why should we pay for the inadequacies of compilers?
> Somebody ported Spirit to VC6.5. That made the Spirit code a bit more
> complicated, I'm sure. Was it worth it? You didn't reject it, I hear ;-)
Yes, but the interface was not compromised at all by the port to MSVC.
> > I firmly believe that we should push these compilers hard to
> > send a strong message to the compiler makers not to be lax.
> > I am having the impression now that MPL's interface was designed
> > in part to get around these limitations?
> Not really. There is one area where you commonly use a different
> construct for portability: when invoking a metafunction in certain
> contexts, you write:
> mpl::apply<function, arg1, arg2>::type
> instead of:
> function::template apply<arg1, arg2>::type
> hmm, it's shorter the portable way ;-)
> MPL lambda expressions don't work with VC6.x, BTW, so it's not as though
> the design is limited by MSVC support.
> > If so, this is not a good sign.
> Rest easy ;-)
Ok, I will :-)
> > > 5) (IMO) The above is too low-level, and harder to parse and
> understand when
> > > the original 'fold' version.
> > Sorry, but I do not agree. Peter's and Andrei's versions are
> > easier to understand. At least for me (no offense meant :-)
> Even I have to agree with that part.
Pardon me. Which part was that again?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk