Re: [boost] [MPL lite or MPL 2] A modest proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [MPL lite or MPL 2] A modest proposal
From: Bruno Dutra (brunocodutra_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-05 13:43:58

2015-03-05 12:04 GMT-03:00, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>:
> But the implementation could take advantage
> of modern C++ and wouldn't be required to be compatible with any
> compiler which doesn't support C++11+.  So presumable this
> would be much easier than the current MPL

I do understand dropping support to ancient defective compilers, but
why should it also deny support to older language standards on
compilers that do comply with them? No doubt it should benefit from
post C++11 features, notably variadic templates, but I don't see why
it shouldn't emulate variadics on C++98/03 setups, just like it
already does today. Please note the difference between old deffective
implementations from valid implementations of older standards.

I share the point of view of some others here who advocate that, were
MPL to be written today, would it probably be designed in an entirely
new way, possibly similarly to the way Hana and Meta were designed.
This way, IMO there seems to be little sense in rewriting MPL
exclusively for compilers that support C++11.

-- 
*Bruno C. O. Dutra*