Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-17 15:42:36
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> I am much less against additional macro names than you are. I see nothing
> wrong with a well-documented and large API, with a programmer understanding
> what has to be used for what needed functionality.
I think the therein lies the concern: a large API makes it more difficult
for the programmer to understand what is and is not relevant for the task at
Having the MTFC macros does not hurt anything. There is no reason to not
> supply them purely as a convenience.
The reason not to supply them is that it contributes unnecessarily to API
bloat. If Boost.TypeTraits supplied metafunction classes for all its
metafunctions, I bet people would be making noise :)
Regarding comments about, e.g., a literature search and an exhaustive
comparison between other libraries (I'll refrain from quoting), it would be
nice, and the more we know what we can do and cannot do with respect to
non-intrusive compile-time introspection, the better. It's something that
should be seamlessly addable in the future if deemed important enough.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk