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

Subject: Re: [boost] [MPL lite or MPL 2] A modest proposal
From: Louis Dionne (ldionne.2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-05 15:01:42

Steven Watanabe <watanabesj <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> AMDG
> 
> On 03/05/2015 11:43 AM, Bruno Dutra wrote:
> > 
> > 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 think you underestimate just how painful
> it is to emulate variadics in C++03.

+1 It's a _lot_ of work, and you end up with something that's
only marginally more readable than the current MPL.

Louis