From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-16 09:31:50
Arkadiy Vertleyb <vertleyb <at> hotmail.com> writes:
> "JoaquÃn MÂª LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz" <joaquin <at> tid.es> wrote
> >> Why not use an MPL sequence of indexes in the first place?
> >MPL is an extremely powerful library, but I honestly don't
> >expect it to to be part of the common knowledge shared by the C++
> I don't quite agree with you here... Meta-programming has become a major
> part of C++, and allowing to specify a list of types is going to be more and
> more common thing. It may be expected in the future by more and more people
> (as it is expected by some people already) that, whenever multiple types are
> used, they have to be combined in a standard type sequence. MPL sequence is
> becomming such standard (as STL has become).
Well, our opinions differ. Just out of curiosity, ask
your fellow programmers if they know what MPL is. I have
done that, and hardly anyone knew about Boost, let alone MPL.
Anyway, please read on.
> One compromise would be to use the MPL sequence concept, and have indexed_by
> implementing it (say derive it from mpl::vector). At least then there would
> be no need in the MPL converter.
I've done some tweakings and your proposal works.
Besides, it makes sense. To sum it up, one would
still be allowed to write
or whatever MPL forward sequence. OK, it seems to me
a good compromise. If nobody's against it it'll go in
the post review version. Thanx for discussing!
JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
TelefÃ³nica, InvestigacÃ³n y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk