Boost logo

Boost :

From: Markus Werle (numerical.simulation_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-26 09:34:40

David Abrahams wrote:

> Markus Werle <numerical.simulation_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> OK, I give a chance to everyone:
>> For every compiler: if 30 users answer this post
>> and declare that they are really interested in
>> Daixtrose to be boostified and that they have no chance
>> to switch compilers within the next 2 years, then I will
>> try to support that one.
>> Otherwise it's Intel-C++-7.1/8.0 and gcc-3.4.
> Suit yourself. Be forewarned that the compilers supported may affect
> the community's interest level. If you don't care about having lots
> of users, you can certainly get by with that strategy.

I see.
Is it much better if MSVC-7.x (x>1) is added to the set
of possible compilers?

Which minimal set of the macros mentioned
in the int_const_guidelines do you think
is mandatory then?

Probably I should take the same approach as loki,
where there is a pure version and a portable version
side by side, dispatched by

> BTW, we have lots of libraries you can use to eliminate portability
> hacks in your own code. For example, I have way fewer platform
> headaches now that I use the MPL for all my metaprogramming jobs.

I really want etl be based on boost::mpl as far as possible.
(though I sometimes suffer under the brevity of the docs,
a few more examples would help).

Is there a detailed documentation of all the mpl macros?

> I daresay that between MPL, type traits, and possibly Fusion

Fusion? Is that another library? Or do you mean fusion
of mpl and typetraits?

> you could
> make writing an expression template library seem easy.

Let's say "cleaner in design". Easy assumes I already
have learned all that is available.


P.S.: do you see any really bad design flaws in Daixtrose
which should be avoided in etl?

Compile time analytic differentiation with Daixtrose!

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at