Subject: Re: [boost] [mpl] ForwardIterator concept recursion
From: Christian Schladetsch (christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-10 05:26:48
> I really wonder what would be a reasonable semantics of concept
The idea seems reasonable at first blush. We are used to such things from
the start of maths and computer science.
A problem seems to be that we are trying to be meta-meta when meta- alone
suffices. I am reminded of when Buddha was asked about meta-existance (life
after death). He said that we should be more concerned about the here and
now, and less concerned about what may or may not come after.
The same seems to be true in this and many other similar cases. Yes,
compiler errors are terrible in C++ with deeply nested meta-code. We all
know about it, and C++0x was going to 'fix' it with concepts.
Alas, that was not to be. So we are stuck with template and typename and
invalid use thereof rather than solving any real problems.
Why not just move to D? I realise this is a C++ list, but even so this is
also a list of intelligent people. Among many others, I have been bi-curious
about D for some years but have yet to make the leap to make a project with
it. But why not?
I realise this is outlandish to post to boost. I am just openly wondering:
why don't we all just move to D? AFIACT it links with all existing
(non-templated) C++ libraries.
Alex has put is own stake down some time ago. We all admire him. C++ has let
us down, and even then we know that it will be years before boost can use
even a modicum of C++0x let alone C++1x features.
Or, we could get them and more now by just moving to D and be done with it.
I don't have any action items to add here. I don't know what it would take
to move to C++ to D. But I for one am open to the idea.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk