Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC][MPL11] Post C++Now update
From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-19 09:11:07

I was one of the people at the conference that tried to convince Louis to
approach things this way. I wasn't the only one, and I can only speak for
myself. The advantage to me is that I might have a library that I can use
to do *both* compile-time only, and runtime+compiletime operations. Now
that I have constexpr function and decltype(), I find the lines between
compiletime and runtime operations to be sufficiently blurred that I don't
draw the clear distinction I once did. For instance, in C++14, I can
simply elide certain metafunctions I used to require to compute the return
values of certain functions -- anything that can be done with a fold can be
written in the form "auto foo (args) { return fold(some_fn, args); }".
 This makes me gravitate towards a solution that marries runtime and
compile time as much as possible.

That being said, it doesn't look like Louis is committed to one approach or
another yet; he is still investigating. Also, he is not committed to
making a drop-in Fusion replacement, just an updated MPL for C++11/14. He
is simply trying to incorporate Fusion-like elements in that where they are
appropriate. Louis, please correct me if I'm mistaken.


On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 5/19/14, 3:49 PM, Gonzalo BG wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]
>> >wrote:
>> Moreover, Christopher Schmidt finished a full C++11 rewrite of Fusion
>>> during
>>> GSoC 2009. It might be a good idea to go back and look what he came up
>>> with.
>> What happened with that rewrite?
>> Are there any plans to review it/merge it with master?
> See my other post.
> Regards,
> --
> Joel de Guzman
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at