From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 14:39:55
"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> And I second the use of MPL conventions. I would fully
> expect FC++ to interoperate with MPL where it is easy for
> it to do so. Failure to interoperate only because of naming
> differences would be most unfortunate.
Actually, let me put it this way. The great thing about MPL is
not the meta-algorithms or type containers. The great thing
about MPL is the MetaConcepts that attempt to do for
metaprogramming what the STL does for runtime
programming. A meta-algorithm that doesn't use ::type and
::apply<> is like a generic algorithm that doesn't take iterators
or functors. A type container that doesn't define begin<> and
end<> is like a generic container that doesn't produce iterators.
The STL is extensible precisely because it relies on Concepts,
and the same should be true of MPL.
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk