From: Paul Baxter (paul.baxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-13 16:51:35
I'm on no particular side of the fence here, and feel a bit saddened by the
tone of some of the Loki vs MPL typelists discussion. I always thought that
one needs to see convincing arguments/examples to increase complexity.
I prefer to start simple then work up to more complex (and more capable)
facilities if there is a need. That means that I need to see why MPL's
complexity is better than a simpler interface.
I would hope that rather than reviewing MPL as a cool new toy or a step
forward to yet another programming methodolgy, we stop first and agree what
needs it fulfils. If it is a library designed purely as a FP toolkit grafted
onto C++, fine. If it is to be considered more generally as an aid to C++
developers justify that claim and provide streamlined interfaces for that
Since many people including myself are unfamiliar with its concepts, perhaps
more examples and documentation would be the way to achieve this. Its not as
much fun as coding, but its being brought to a largely unfamiliar audience
Is it acceptable to vote against a library because its intended audience
would only be a very small subset of the C++ community? Personally I think
not, but there doesn't seem much of a mechanism to decide what will be put
up for review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk