Re: [boost] [tti] review

Subject: Re: [boost] [tti] review
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-17 18:46:39

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976_at_[hidden]>wrote:

>
> > On 7/17/2011 4:10 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Jeff's suggestion that the matching metafunction should
> take a metafunction that defaults to is_same rather than always testing for
> type equality (and now I see why he was also suggesting that in the Type
> Traits Extension review :).
> >
> > I will look further into adding this but I strongly feel that I should
> > not drop the simple functionality currently provided, where the end-user
> > can just pass an actual type.
>
> As a casual Boost user, I would welcome this. I would find TTI very
> useful, but I do not know MPL beyond the very basics, and I'd rather not
> have to learn it just so that I can use TTI. I think others may be in
> the same position.
>

My initial response is, grab a beer and go learn about Boost.MPL lambda
expressions, you'll be happy you did (at worst, you're +1 drunk beer).

Okay, my secondary response:  I don't think it's really that bad to write

has_type_xxx< T, boost::is_same< boost::mpl::_1, U > > // my proposed query

rather than

has_type_xxx< T, U > // current query

(a)  How often do you *really* want to check that T::xxx is precisely U?  I
think, much more frequently, you'll just want has_type_xxx<T>.  And I'm
*not* proposing to get rid of *that*.
(b)  To me, the former states more explicitly how U ties into the query.
(c)  With the current has_type_xxx semantics, it's going to get onerous one
metaprogramming day when boost::is_same< boost::mpl::_1, U > just isn't want
what you want.  You want to check if T::xxx is an object type.  Or whether
it's const-qualified.  Or any of a number of other properties in
Boost.TypeTraits.  Or :: gasp :: whether T::xxx itself has a nested type yyy
:)

Given that TTI is a "metaprogramming library proposed for Boost", I don't
really see any issues (in theory) with TTI making good use of a library
called "Boost Metaprogramming Library" (aka, Boost.MPL).

Honestly, though, it did take me a few reads to dissect the nuances of the
Boost.MPL "Metafunctions" section, specifically the subsections "Invocation"
and "Composition and Argument Binding".  Fortunately, I believe only a very
small part of that is necessary to effectively use my proposed change to
HAS_TYPE.  You can get a lot of mileage out of just knowing about and using
Boost.MPL placeholder expressions like boost::is_same< boost::mpl::_1, U >.
I know *I* did for a long time and I just accepted the "magic" that went on
behind the scenes that made them work until I mustered up the courage to
really delve into the documentation.

I think if TTI just added a couple of examples showing Boost.MPL placeholder
expressions in action, everything would be fine.

- Jeff