Subject: Re: [boost] [mpl] multiset
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-13 10:30:01
Please don't top-post on this list. Rearranging.
On Feb 13, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Bruno Dutra <brunocodutra_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2015 9:19 AM, "Mathias Gaunard" <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]>
>> On 11/02/2015 01:25, Bruno Dutra wrote:
>> Anyways, MPL seems to have seen better days of activity back in the day,
>>> there's lots of opportunities for improvement still and I for one would be
>>> glad to help developing some fancier features.
>> MPL is not undergoing active development anymore and is just being
>> I believe however that some people were interested in doing a new C++11
>> version of MPL. I think the problem is that every year or so someone finds
>> a new fancy way to do meta-programming with the latest C++ features, with
>> noble goals of unifying MPL and Fusion, so most of these rewrites end up as
>> experiments rather than stable libraries.
> So what you are trying to say is that MPL is frozen for new features, or
> just that so far no attempt of improvement has been proven stable enough? I
> mean, is there interest on new features, provided of course their merits
> are proven, or the community currently understands MPL should not be
> changed beyond necessary fixes?
> At least a backward compatible port of MPL taking advantage of C++11 syntax
> should be fairly easy to achieve, with the benefits of increasing arity
> limits up to compiler variadic limits and even overcoming performance
> shortcomings for setups which have variadic templates enabled. All of this
> with no need of refactoring on the end user side naturally.
I'm sure many of us would welcome that.
For comparison, you should take a look at Louis Dionne's MPL11, which did not end up backward-compatible (but is pretty amazing), and Hana, which strays even further (and combines Fusion and MPL).