From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-31 09:11:52
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: MPL containers and algorithms
> Yes, but with the STL there are specific needs for specific container
> as access time, insertion time, memory use, etc.. Various types of
> for various needs. These have come about over decades of study, and the
> for them proven in the field.
> These same arguments do not apply here.
> I don't
> think that we need multiple *sequence* types.
Fair enough, but you should notice that your entire argument seems to based
in the axiomatic statement that I remarked above.
IMO, the bottom line of this discussion is that Andrei and you think that
compile-time programming differs from run-time programming so much that, as
you said, the conventional run-time needs (such as efficient random access
time, head-tail appending time, insertion time, permutation time, etc...)
don't apply to compile-time.
You have to prove, or at least, explain a lot more deeply, this point
precisely. Why different sequence-types are undoubtly useful in run-time,
but not in compile-time? It all boils down to this.
I haven't got the time the actually use MPL during the review.
Based on the paper and the examples -which I looked closely- I vote to
accept the library.
I haven't read the reference documentation, though; only the paper
I'm quite familiar with metaprogramming, so I couldn't see the paper from
the perspective of a brand new user, but from my background I found it very
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk