[boost] Re: Formal Review: Template Metaprogramming Library (MPL)

From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-21 02:16:37

More comments  on Boost C++ Metaprogramming Library Paper

page 24 3. Lambda facility
What bind is used there? Is it boost::bind? If not it worth to add an
explicit namespace.

What are meta_fun[1|2]? It is the first time you mention them.

Part about _ placeholder confused me a lot.
First you describe an alternative way to get an equivalent metafunction. Why
do we need that? Will it work without  partial specialization?

Statement: "In absence of lambda ... MPL enables one to write the above in a
less cumbersome way" confuses me. Why did not we used this less cumbersome
way in general? "for the case , when all the arguments are replaced by a
special lambda placeholder _." What is this case How come we needed numbered
placeholders before and do not need them any more?
Later on you rewrite second "alternative way" bind example with use of _.
But you still use _1,_2 on one place. So, where we could and were we could
not use them?

Page 25 Syntax error "metufunction"

Page 26 4. Code generation facilities

and what are the general requirements for metafunction class to be able to
use it for code generation

Page 29. 5.1
When you trying to show how short would it be to use MPL to implement
transition table, you achieve this by omitting a lot of "details".

What is "transition" class? You did not define it.
What is "state" class? You did not define it.
What is "state_machine" class? You did not define it.

So you could not say "that's all - the above will generate a complete FSM".

You mention TTS. Did you mean STT?

Gennadiy.