Subject: Re: [boost] Template metaprogramming libraries
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-09 20:05:46
On Sep 9, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Gordon Woodhull wrote:
> Is there a summary somewhere of the difference between your approach and MPL's?
Okay I have read
Functional Extensions to the Boost Metaprogram Library
Now I get it, lazy extensions for MPL, and all the other goodies you would expect from a haskell-like functional programming library.
And now monads too.
Bravo! I hope you bring these libraries to Boost. I crave the simpler syntax and ability to create more complex of pure lazy evaluation.
Have you measured compilation performance versus more-eager MPL implementations of the same algorithms, to see how bad the abstraction penalty is?
I am looking at porting various Boost.Graph algorithms to my proposed MPL.Graph. Do I understand that monads will help me define metadata structures like heaps and forests that don't seem to "map" easily to functional programming?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk