From: Itay Maman (itay_maman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-29 16:26:22
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> "Itay Maman" <itay_maman_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>What about the mpl::list? The compilation time (GCC
>>3.0.4) was a killer. I see these options:
>> (1) Offer a choice between mpl::list and
>> (2) Use mpl::list only
>> (3) Add a Loki-like, reduced, typelist library to
>>variant.hpp. The user will have the choice, with
>>mpl::list being the default
> It is my understanding that mpl does have a dot-style typelist. If
> not, it should. Then, why wouldn't you use that? Ideally, the
> dot-style typelist would be in a small header so you don't have to
> #include the world to get the six lines of code that comprise the
> dot-style typelist.
Does mpl currently offer a dot-style typelist? It seems like a
> FWIW, little ad-hoc dot-typelists appear all over the place in various
> boost libraries. Would be good to unify those. I think it would be
> great to set politics aside and to include dot-typelists in boost.
> They are a useful facility.
I believe that mpl should supply some sort of 'lite' list (no matter
what is the underlying implementation) which does not put such a heavy
weight on the compiler. Ideally, this list would support mpl::list's
interface, or (at least) a subset of it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk