Subject: Re: [boost] traits classes vs. metafunctions
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-03-31 13:57:05
Am 31.03.2013 19:46, schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> On 31 March 2013 18:31, Stefan Strasser wrote:
>> I don't understand why they didn't get rid of the "metafunction" concept as
>> we use it today entirely, but introduce it into the official standard via
>> type traits.
>> E.g. via a "constexpr" that can return types, or some other native syntax
>> for metafunctions.
> And I don't understand why people expect the standard to emerge
> perfectly formed from some magic source of an ideal language.
> If you think there should be something else then get involved and
I can understand your viewpoint, but even if I wasn't involved in IT at
the time, and certainly not at that level, I can still say that it
always seemed rather obvious to me that the "metafunction concept" of
Boost.MPL is a workaround because of missing native language features
(using template, class, typedef).
so I was surprised that it was introduced into the standard when there
was a chance to natively support metafunctions.
that isn't saying that anyone did a bad job when introducing type
traits, and I'm sorry if it was perceived that way.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk