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