Re: [boost] "Simple C++11 metaprogramming"

Subject: Re: [boost] "Simple C++11 metaprogramming"
From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-01 22:32:26

On 6/2/15 7:55 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> There obviously do exist occasions that call for higher-order metaprogramming. The
> question is can we get by in 97% of the cases without it. Not whether it's useful, but
> whether it's indispensable. Whether there's a room for a "simple" metaprogramming library
> that doesn't provide higher-order constructs and is therefore based on template aliases
> and not on metafunction classes, and whether such a library can be adequately useful for
> real world tasks. (I'm open to the possibility that the answer is "no", but I'd like it to
> be "yes".)

+10 This is exactly what I've been saying the past year or so. This seems the
consensus among people who have "been there and done that". I personally am
avoiding fancy TMP libraries now in favor of simpler mechanisms.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.ciere.com
http://boost-spirit.com
http://www.cycfi.com/