On 02/19/09 08:59, Andrew Sutton wrote: [snip]
I'll also open up the repo for read access.
Good. I'll have a look and see if it might give me some ideas for how to improve what's in the vault. Of course I *should* provide a rationalization for the implementation, but I'm a bit lazy :(
I'm not sure that the goals for my project align perfectly with those of the Boost libraries so the design and implementation are a little different that those of the MPL.
One goal of the mpl design was to minimize compilation time since that can take so long with templates. The mpl book: http://www.boostpro.com/mplbook/ contains a whole appendix C on the subject. AFAICT, that's why mpl uses a lot of boost_pp programing. I'm guessing compilation time is not that important in your project. Besides, variadic templates are supposed to minimize compile times cause by defining variadic templates: http://www.osl.iu.edu/~dgregor/cpp/variadic-templates.html
Besides, the students to do some of their own work :)
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that it's possible that each student might have a different goal than Boost's; consequently, the design of their library might be different than mpl's? Could these students maybe provide a description of their goals and how they differ from mpl's (of course I'm not sure: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_38_0/libs/mpl/doc/index.html has what you'd consider a description of the mpl goals; hence, maybe there's no way the students could describe the differences.)
why at least some of mpl and fusion could be merged, in
particular the tuple templates.
Being the author and maintainer of neither, I'm not sure I can postulate a good answer.
Sure. I've been trying to figure an answer myself for quite some time. I just thought maybe another viewpoint might help.