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:
> 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:
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:
> 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:
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk