Subject: Re: [boost] MPL and MPL core
From: Bruno Dutra (brunocodutra_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-01 08:32:04
On Apr 1, 2015 1:16 AM, "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > MPL2 sure would come handy, it would be guaranteed to be
> > maintained and most certainly would be able provide much more advanced
> > features than good old MPL could ever be dreamed to provide.
> I would counsel against expanding the scope beyond the minimum. You
> can always to that later. The number one problem with making a Boost
> library (or any library no tied to some specific application) is that the
> developer becomes so enthralled with his work that he makes it better
> before it makes it "done" (including tests, documentation etc.).
> a larger project that doesn't get finished much less interesting for us
> than a smaller project that is actually done.
> Robert Ramey
Absolutely. When I speak of enhancements I merely foresee that if MPL2
proves itself useful and be thus embraced by the community, then it will be
most natural for it to be pushed forward.
Aside from a couple of improvements that should arise naturally from a well
thought design, initially I plan to attain just to MPL's original scope and
focus on getting it done.
On Apr 1, 2015 7:00 AM, "Paul A. Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of
> > Sent: 01 April 2015 05:02
> > To: boost_at_[hidden]
> > Subject: Re: [boost] MPL and MPL core
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bruno Dutra" <brunocodutra_at_[hidden]>
> > > > If there is an idiomatic way to do metaprogramming in C++11, I'm
> > > > sure I don't know what it is. But yeah, it's probably not the MPL.
> > >
> > > I was about to say the very same thing. I keep being told MPL is old
> > > fashioned, but, to be honest, so far I've failed to see what the
> > > "C++11 way" of metaprogramming is.
> > 2c: This is exactly why modern non-legacy-constrained C++14
metaprogramming libraries are needed:
> > discover, organize, and formalize that unknown.
> Since we have MPL1 which works for C++03, there should be no limitations
on compile features used
> for MPL2.
> MPL2 should try to leap forward as far as possible.
> (If it turns out that C++11++ features are not useful to do MPLy tasks,
that is also useful info).
The thoughts you all have been sharing with me have been helping me better
shape what specific necessities MPL2 is expected to satisfy. I'm naturally
glad to realize that there's still so much interest in MPL/MPL2 and that
every time this topic is raised so many people join the discussion to
express their opinions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk