Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [MPL lite or MPL 2] A modest proposal
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-05 05:30:22

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I've been looking at another thread which address the problems of maintaining
> and/or finding a maintainer for MPL. I've come up with an idea for a
> proposal which I've laid out here: Library Idea MPL lite or MPL2
> <>

This sounds very similar to the MPL and MPL.Core separation [1]. I
didn't drop workarounds for old compilers (except for one for
Borland), but MPL.Core seems to be close to what you list as MPL lite.
I think it is quite possible to drop the compatibility cruft from
MPL.Core, although I'm not sure how useful that would be. Others have
stated that newer language features can be used but require a
reimplementation. That's probably true, although I'm quite happy with
the current MPL.Core interface (note - not the iterators stuff, which
is not part of MPL.Core).


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