[boost] Re: FC++ -- Formal Review Result

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-07 10:03:01

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> [...]
>> This is not nesserary good thing. I would prefer to be able to use
>> imperetive style in metaprogramming.
>
> Really?  You would want mutable types?  So suppose I define a
> class type, and then you use it in one place, and I redefine it later,
> and you use it again?  Does the fact that the ODR is broken bother
> you?

Careful, Dave.  In general, metaprogramming doesn't need to use types
as its underlying computation mechanism.  Java and Python have
immutable strings but imperative code; likewise it's possible to
design a language with immutable types but imperative metacode.  In
fact, I predict that if support for concepts is built into C++ we will
eventually run out of rope even for the things we do today with TMP
and we will *need* a new approach.  I sure hope that approach can look
more like regular C++ programming than TMP does.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com