Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC][MPL11] Post C++Now update
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-20 18:00:03
On 2014-05-20 20:59, Larry Evans wrote:
> On 05/18/14 15:41, Louis Dionne wrote:
>> Dear Boost,
>> A lot happened during the past week in Aspen; the goal of this message
>> is to summarize insights, changes and feedback received wrt MPL11.
>> The slides of the presentation are available at . The second part of
>> the presentation is especially relevant to get an overview of the
>> considered so far.
>> Merging the MPL and Fusion
>> After discussing the issue several times during the week, I (and others)
>> think it might be possible to merge Fusion and the MPL into a single
>> library. I am currently trying to write a library that does that. Since
>> this constitutes a large reorientation, I created a new repository which
>> is available at . Those with interest should consider subscribing to
>> the repository to be updated as I make progress.
>> Iterator-free design
>> I was a bit anxious that people would complain about this, but the
>> happened. Nobody complained and some people expressed support. This
>> aspect will stay as-is.
>> Request for guinea pigs
>> I am looking for people with hardcore C++1y metaprogramming needs who
>> be willing to test the library I come up with (MPL11 or MPL + Fusion
>> I also need to see use cases for the library, so please reply even if
>> are not willing to test.
> As mentioned in this post:
> One use case is:
> > 3) A guaranteed non-recursive way to access elements of parameter
> > packs
> and Doug Gregor (quoting from above post) says:
> This is probably the most-requested feature for variadic templates,
> and it never it made it because we never found a good, unambiguous
> The attached seems to do that. What about adding something
> like this to the library?
Attached is a solution that uses C++14 index sequence (which is
recursive, afaik), but is otherwise recursion free. Maybe there is a
non-recursive alternative to index_sequence to "eat up" the first N-1
The code based on the third attachment of this clang bug report
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk