RE: [boost] Re: enable_if review

From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-10 13:33:33

> First of all, my vote is to accept enable_if.
> > 
> > It seems that submitted components belongs rather to mpl 
> library that 
> > to utility. What about placing it there?
> 
> Where to start? I got the impression that a shift in the views of 
> several boosters occurred during the last months. While boost was 
> previously a collection of separate components and therefore 
> what I call a library, it is becoming something different. It seems that 
> most thing are seen in the context of MPL today. While this is necessary
for the 
> MPL itself, it puts a price on other components.

For example?
 
> I don't want to judge this, it's just an observation so far 
> and I'd like 
> to raise my concerns about it. The MPL is IMHO a framework, not a 
> library. It depends on conventions others have to fulfill. The 
> implementation and documentation of enable_if is much larger 
> than what 
> it would probably be without the MPL.

?? Could you elaborate please?
 
[snip]

I could imagine that there some staff in MPL details that could be made
public (to be reused). The rest of the library is a collection of
*independent* tools for metaprogramming. enable_if is obviously
metaprogramming tool it belongs to mpl namespace where rest of such tools
reside. As for presence of _c counterpart mpl (I think) proved that in a
long run it's more practical to have 2 version of each tool, one that accept
type and one that accept bool. As for naming - again why not to stick to the
convention chosen for the rest of MP tools?

Regards,

Gennadiy.