Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [review][mp11] Review report
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-02 15:14:29

On 8/2/17 4:22 AM, Bjorn Reese via Boost-users wrote:

> It was discussed if C++11 (and later) makes it too easy to write our
> own metaprogramming utilities, and thus not needing a metaprogramming
> library. This was not directed at Mp11 in particular. Some of the
> arguments in favor of a metaprogramming library were better performance
> and portability.
> I would like to add another advantage of a metaprogramming library,
> namely that it gives us a common vocabulary.

There is one point I forgot to mention in my review which I would like
to mention now.

I see the library as a "thin" implementation replacement for boost.mpl.
This is totally approrpriate and useful. But there is one thing that
MPL does which is not done by mp11. MPL is much more than a library.
It's an exhaustive tutorial on template meta-programming for beginners.
It works in conjunction with Abrahams and Gurtovoy's very helpful book.
For each meta-function it includes a small example illustrating how it
is to be used. For this reason, MPL has probably been the single most
important factor in getting TMP into the mainstream. I would very much
like to see mpl11 continue to perform this very, very important
function. Specifically I would like to the documentation contain a page
for each meta-function which includes:



implementation - almost all the functions have very simple (once you see
them) implementations - often just one line.

example of use

I was pleased with the power and simplicity of the library, I forgot to
include the above suggestion. Hope it's not too late.

Robert Ramey

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at