Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [MPL lite or MPL 2] A modest proposal
From: pmenso57_at_[hidden]
Date: 2015-03-06 19:29:46

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruno Dutra" <brunocodutra_at_[hidden]>

> 2015-03-06 15:13 GMT-03:00, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>:
> > My proposal is a response to suggestions that we might address
> > the mpl maintenance problem by eliminating support for older compilers
> > and standards. In my opinion, the suggestion has merit in that writing mpl
> > using C++11 features would result in something much easier to maintain
> > and understand. Of course this would not be compatible with C++03
> > compilers.
> >
> >
> > The only way to have it both ways is to leave the current MPL as it is
> > and add a separately maintained "MPL Lite" or "MPL.core" or whatever
> > which would be C++11+ only. For those who are concerned about the
> > maintainability issue with the current MPL - and actually would be
> > interested
> > in doing something about it - I believe that this would be a good way
> > forward.
> >
> > Of course the original MPL would be around as long as anyone needs it.
> >
> > This is my attempt to suggest something which pleases everyone.
> No doubt support to defective compilers essentially renders MPL
> unmaintainable. The only thing of which I'm not so convinced yet, is
> the notion that keeping compatibility with C++98/03 would be that
> harmful to maintainability. I still believe it could be managed and,
> to me, that would be the perfect balance between compatibility and
> maintainability, hopefully attracting maintainers to MPL(2) once
> again.

2c: I would be against another metaprogramming library _unless_ it was based on thoroughly modern C++. It is long past time for Boost to start pushing compilers again at a fundamental compiler implementation level.

Paul Mensonides

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