Subject: Re: [boost] "Simple C++11 metaprogramming"
From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 09:10:18
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> consensus among people who have "been there and done that". I personally am
> avoiding fancy TMP libraries now in favor of simpler mechanisms.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
TMP gets even easier with some of the C++14 features, so much so that I
keep wondering if I'll ever use MPL (or the type-computation-only portion
of Hana) again.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk