From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-01 22:06:51
On Thursday 01 August 2002 04:07 pm, Emily Winch wrote:
> > Maybe Mike has some data on this for us. They might have tried cons-style
> > lists.
> I don't think they did, but I could be wrong.
Nope, they didn't.
> We do need to do that. And we can, without requiring any kind of type
> list to do so. I think we may be hooked up by my use of type list/value
> list: by type list I meant a list that _doesn't_ carry values. I suppose
> that's misleading, since the value list is really intrinsically a type
> list also.
> So: Mike B. doesn't need a vector-based typelist (without values) in
> order to access types in his vector-based value list. Thus, just because
> someone needs a vector-based value list, doesn't imply the MPL should
> contain a vector-based non-value typelist.
I see your point here, that in the example I gave there is no pressing need to
work on just the types in the value list.
> I think I need a better set of terminology :)
I got very confused by the phrase "vector-based typelist" , but I think I get
it now :) Maybe "vector-based type sequence" would have helped, so that I
wouldn't be envisioning a cons-style typelist right after reading
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk