Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review
From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-19 19:15:54

On 6/20/15 6:57 AM, Louis Dionne wrote:
> Joel de Guzman <djowel <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Let me just make this clear: I am for Hanna's acceptance into boost.
>> It is cool and well implemented. Many people will find a use for it.
>> It's just not for me.
>
> I'm fine with that, really. But just to be clear, would you use a TMP
> library that would be basically Hana core:
>
> - an efficient tuple implementation
> - optimized algorithms (filter, transform, for_each, nothing fancy)
> - no fancy FP concepts
> - a couple of header files, no more
>
> Would you use that, or would you still prefer to DIY?

Yes! Definitely! Isn't that what this thread, started by David,
is all about? Let me quote:

My one question, as I read though the implementation, is "can the core
benefits of this library be achived with a simpler 'light' version of this
implementation?". While I appreciate the attempt to encode a Haskell-style
typeclass hierarchy, I feel like that is not the core competency of hana
and should be a separate library and discussion. As it is, this is a 32k
header mega library. I'd prefer several small, highly-targeted,
highly-composable libraries.

Make it as simple as Eric's or Peter's libs, since that's what you will
be up against. "a couple of header files" will be fine fine, but a
single header file would be super cool!

(P.S. phoenix-lite is a single header file)

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