Re: [boost] [fusion] C++0x support?

Subject: Re: [boost] [fusion] C++0x support?
From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-19 11:18:56

On 02/19/09 08:59, Andrew Sutton wrote:
[snip]
> I'll also open up the repo for read access. 

Good.  I'll have a look and see if it might
give me some ideas for how to improve what's
in the vault.  Of course I *should* provide
a rationalization for the implementation,
but I'm a bit lazy :(

> I'm not sure that the goals for
> my project align perfectly with those of the Boost libraries so the design
> and implementation are a little different that those of the MPL. 

One goal of the mpl design was to minimize compilation time
since that can take so long with templates. The mpl book:

   http://www.boostpro.com/mplbook/

contains a whole appendix C on the subject.
AFAICT, that's why mpl uses a lot of boost_pp programing.
I'm guessing  compilation time is not that important in your project.
Besides, variadic templates are supposed to minimize
compile times cause by defining variadic templates:

http://www.osl.iu.edu/~dgregor/cpp/variadic-templates.html

> Besides, the students to do some of their own work :)

I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you mean that it's possible that
each student might have a different goal than Boost's; consequently,
the design of their library might be different than mpl's?
Could these students maybe provide a description of their goals
and how they differ from mpl's (of course I'm not sure:

http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_38_0/libs/mpl/doc/index.html

has what you'd consider a description of the mpl goals; hence,
maybe there's no way the students could describe the differences.)

> 
> why at least some of mpl and fusion could be merged, in
>> particular the tuple templates.
> 
> 
> Being the author and maintainer of neither, I'm not sure I can postulate a
> good answer.

Sure.  I've been trying to figure an answer myself for quite some
time.  I just thought maybe another viewpoint might help.