Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Adding Loki to Boost (reprise)

From: joel de guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-14 21:02:06

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aleksey Gurtovoy" :

> > Exactly! The keyword here is "facilitate".
> 
> Let's not make unfounded statements here, even implicit ones. I am pretty
> sure that someone familiar with the library will write
> 'gen_linear_hierarchy' much more faster using MPL facilities than any C++
> metaprogramming expert using "C++ only" (or, FWIW, Loki), and her version
> will work on much greater number of compilers. If this doesn't fall under
> your definition of "facilitate", then we are talking in different
> dimensions.

I beg your pardon. This is not unfounded. Your *original* version of 
count_if *does not* facilitate metaprogramming at all. This is of course
my opinion and the opinion of others as well. It just so happens that
this opinion is contrary to yours, but that does NOT make it "unfounded".

> There is very little special semantics one need to learn about "MPL's
> version of fold". The basic usage is exactly the same as in most FP
> languages, and matches the semantics of 'std::accumulate' as well - it takes
> a sequence, an initial state, a binary metufunction-class, and returns the
> result of sequential application of the metafunction-class to each element
> of the sequence and the previous state. "Tried and true pattern matching +
> recursion patterns" is unfamiliar to most C++ programmers that have never
> been exposed to template metaprogramming before.

Of course not. We *were* talking about your *original* version of fold_iter
(or whatever) and all the excess baggage that comes with it. You are taking
this out of context. My previous post that you are replying to now was
based on your *original* count_if version. 

I am trying my best here to open up my mind. FWIW, I am not using Loki
at all. I am in the middle ground here. I am really wanting to use MPL.
However, your comments and replies seem to indicate that you are
not willing to take in outside opinion. You state that other opinions
contrary to yours are "unfounded". For that, I am deeply saddened.

Regards,
--Joel