Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-21 18:06:04

Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Let me clarify, if that is too terse. I am *not* against using a TMP 
> library. It's just that my preference now is for simpler libraries; as 
> simple as possible, but still providing most (95+%) of the 
> functionalities.
> That's what we are aiming for with X3. Less is more, simpler is better.
> Most of TMP usage can be distilled in a single header file (again 
> referring to Eric's and Peter's works).

Truth be told, I'm not a big fan of single header libraries. A single header 
does have its benefits, but on the other hand, every change causes a 
recompilation of everything using anything from the library. Whereas if the 
library is split into headers per each component, client code using mp_this 
is not affected when mp_that.hpp changes. So I wouldn't hold the number of 
headers in itself against Louis. Fine-grained is not without its uses.