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).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk