From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-19 14:27:13
At 01:45 AM 8/10/2002, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>... it should be noted that all you really
>have to absorb to start using Loki's typelists is this:
>template <class H, class T>
> typedef H Head;
> typedef T Tail;
>Then, you can naturally use C++'s template engine, which supposedly you
>already know, to work for you. That's why I'm saying that the
>are closest to the way C++'s metaprogramming facilities work.
>have a complexity/benefits ratio that's, in my opinion, unbeatable.
I've often envisioned that concept as the benefit/complexity ratio of a
One problem is that benefit's can mostly only be measured in terms of
applications, while a library's complexity is usually much more fixed.
I've heard Andy Koenig describe two libraries as one having 90% of the
functionality of the other, but requiring only 30% of the code to deliver
That's a round-about way of saying that where there is a much simpler
library design (with relatively less benefits), and a much more complex
design (with relatively more benefits), Boost should consider supporting
There are cases where having two ways of doing something makes no
sense. But we shouldn't reject it out-of-hand. I hope the acceptance of
MPL by Boost won't discourage others from submitting a more minimalist
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk