Re: [boost] About all these metaprogramming libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] About all these metaprogramming libraries
From: Deniz Bahadir (dbahadir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-20 16:19:55

Am 20.03.2017 um 16:00 schrieb Peter Dimov via Boost:
> Deniz Bahadir wrote:
>
>> As mentioned before, I think some kind of comparison between such TMP
>> libraries is required.
>
> Error C6301: passive voice used: "is required"
>
> Who should produce this comparison?

The answer to that question is one of the goals of the current 
discussion, if I understood Michael correctly. ;-)

But jokes aside:

I would recommend, the authors of the different TMP libraries create a 
short list of the concepts/features used and the problems and use-cases 
they want to address with their libraries. (Probably, such a list should 
also be available for Boost.Hana and possibly Boost.MPL. Although I 
doubt that anybody would be pleased to just continue using Boost.MPL 
instead of one of the new TMP-libraries.)
Experienced/interested TMP developers/users could probably help doing so.

Additionally, users of TMP libraries (others or some of the 
to-be-reviewed ones) should mention their use-cases or problems they 
would like to see addressed. (E.g. as I did in my former email; hoping 
for a "drop-in" replacement of Boost.MPL for other Boost libs.)

Checking which of the libraries addresses what needs might help to find 
consensus in what really should and can be addressed and which of the 
new libraries does the best job.
Maybe we will realize their might be two TMP libraries that best become 
joined into a single one to address almost all of the user's needs? Then 
such a joined TMP lib might be the best candidate to become reviewed and 
adopted by Boost?

And just in case, you might ask me the same question. ;-)
The last step, the checking of addressed needs should probably be done 
by all readers of the mailing-list that are interested in this topic via 
discussion on this mailing-list.

As a result we might get a nice pre-selection for a review candidate and 
as a side-effect gather more reviewers, because they already 
participated in the pre-selection so that the review-barrier is/feels 
lowered.

I hope that is not too unrealistic.
Deniz