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

Subject: Re: [boost] [MPL lite or MPL 2] A modest proposal
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-07 11:12:40

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of pmenso57_at_[hidden]
> Sent: 07 March 2015 00:30
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [MPL lite or MPL 2] A modest proposal
> 
> ----- 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.
> 
> 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.

+1

Leaving MPL_1 behind means it should aim for Tip-Of-Tree compiler versions so see how much benefit
can be gleaned from using C++17ish syntax.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]