I was one of the people at the conference that tried to convince Louis to approach things this way. I wasn't the only one, and I can only speak for myself. The advantage to me is that I might have a library that I can use to do *both* compile-time only, and runtime+compiletime operations. Now that I have constexpr function and decltype(), I find the lines between compiletime and runtime operations to be sufficiently blurred that I don't draw the clear distinction I once did. For instance, in C++14, I can simply elide certain metafunctions I used to require to compute the return values of certain functions -- anything that can be done with a fold can be written in the form "auto foo (args) { return fold(some_fn, args); }". This makes me gravitate towards a solution that marries runtime and compile time as much as possible. That being said, it doesn't look like Louis is committed to one approach or another yet; he is still investigating. Also, he is not committed to making a drop-in Fusion replacement, just an updated MPL for C++11/14. He is simply trying to incorporate Fusion-like elements in that where they are appropriate. Louis, please correct me if I'm mistaken. Zach On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Joel de Guzman <djowel@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/19/14, 3:49 PM, Gonzalo BG wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kaiser@gmail.com
wrote:
Moreover, Christopher Schmidt finished a full C++11 rewrite of Fusion
during GSoC 2009. It might be a good idea to go back and look what he came up with.
What happened with that rewrite?
Are there any plans to review it/merge it with master?
See my other post.
Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.ciere.com http://boost-spirit.com http://www.cycfi.com/
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost