Re: [boost] traits classes vs. metafunctions

Subject: Re: [boost] traits classes vs. metafunctions
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-01 14:35:15

Am 01.04.2013 00:49, schrieb Dave Abrahams:
> There's a chance to support lots of things natively that nobody has yet
> implemented, used, formalized, or proposed.  Invent the mechanism and
> put it in a real compiler, and *then* maybe, if it gets used, it will be
> time to propose it for standardization.

> I think you're missing the point.  The committee tries hard not to
> engage in feature invention, and in the rare cases when it does,
> somebody creates an actual implementation of the feature.
>

then I don't think it'll ever happen. there is very little reason for 
compiler implementors to improve the syntax of an existing feature, as 
it will almost never be used unless it's standardized.
the situation with metafunctions is more like c++11 lambdas. (I'm 
guessing here) committee members looked at other languages and library 
implementations of lambdas like Boost.Phoenix and saw the need for 
language support. Was there a production compiler that implemented 
language support for lambdas before it was standardized?