Re: [Boost-users] [review][mp11] Review report

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:

name

description

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