From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-13 00:16:29
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terje Slettebø" <tslettebo_at_[hidden]>
> > That's it, 9 lines of code (7 without braces), one template, two typedefs,
> > done. :)<
> > ...relying on a ton of scaffolding, some of which doesn't even exist!
> Yep, it does. So does C++, compared to the assembly code it's translated
> too. However, the higher level of abstraction also gives it its power.
> It's similar with metaprogramming.
> >No more questions, your honor. I rest my case.
> > Besides, I frankly find the code abominable. It attempts to look and feel
> > like runtime C++, and to me it doesn't do it.
> Well, I guess this is subjective.
> Of course, you're free to use "metaprogramming assembler", too.
I think you missed the point. Andrei and Paul never mentioned anything
about using "metaprogramming assembler". They *do* advocate using
a metaprogramming library. Their point is that the client interface would
have been more straight-forward (and elegant) without the "unecessary"
abstractions that might or might not be useful. Everybody pays for features
they do not need.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk