Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC, MPL11] Community probe
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-22 17:33:32
Le 22/04/14 16:09, Louis Dionne a écrit :
> Dear Boost,
> As a follow-up to , I am probing the community to help clarify what
> are your needs/expectations with respect to a new TMP library. Your
> involvement is important as it will help direct my work on an eventual
> successor to the MPL (in consultation with my mentor, Joel Falcou).
> I expect this to be the first of a series of probes to the community. This
> one focuses on backward compatibility with the MPL.
> COMMUNITY PROBE
> Please comment on how you would like to see the following points addressed
> by a new TMP library:
> (1) Backward compatibility with the MPL. Should it be a swap-in
> replacement? Is it enough to have an easy way to interoperate
> between both libraries (think Fusion/MPL interoperation)?.
> (2) Learning curve for users coming from the MPL. How important is it
> for you to be able to reuse your knowledge of the MPL (not of TMP,
> but of the MPL itself)?.
> Please get involved by posting constructive material.
I'm not concerned with MPL-backward compatibility or the learning curve
for users coming from MPL. You have an opportunity to build a new TMP
library, the work will be long and hard, but adding more constraints
than needed wouldn't help. TMP should be a basic library and other
inter-operable libraries must be build on top of it.
Of course, the new TMP should perform better and be easier to learn than
MPL. This must be possible as C++14 provides more features and so you
will be able to choose the ones that go towards this goal.
What I would like is something that can be proposed to the C++ standard.
A little bit more of TMP in the standard would be much better than much
more in Boost but outside the C++ standard.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk