From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-14 19:17:36
MPL is *not* currently up for review. Aleksey hopes to bring it forth
soon, I think, but until then it would not be fair to treat it as though
it was under review. In particular, questions about voting for/against
the library are premature.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Baxter" <paul.baxter_at_[hidden]>
> I'm on no particular side of the fence here, and feel a bit saddened
> tone of some of the Loki vs MPL typelists discussion. I always thought
> one needs to see convincing arguments/examples to increase complexity.
> I prefer to start simple then work up to more complex (and more
> 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
> forward to yet another programming methodolgy, we stop first and agree
> needs it fulfils. If it is a library designed purely as a FP toolkit
> onto C++, fine. If it is to be considered more generally as an aid to
> developers justify that claim and provide streamlined interfaces for
> Since many people including myself are unfamiliar with its concepts,
> more examples and documentation would be the way to achieve this. Its
> much fun as coding, but its being brought to a largely unfamiliar
> to review.
> Is it acceptable to vote against a library because its intended
> would only be a very small subset of the C++ community? Personally I
> not, but there doesn't seem much of a mechanism to decide what will be
> 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