On 2/28/2016 6:17 PM, Bruno Dutra wrote:
Dear Community,
About a year ago today, there was a proliferation of threads [1][2][3] in this mailing list concerning the future of Boost.MPL, or even whether it had a future at all, and opinions diverged widely on the matter. Many have expressed concerns about the fact Boost.MPL was long outdated and proposed major changes to open path for modernization, while some others argued against it, fearing unexpected and disastrous side-effects could propagate throughout the rest of Boost. A few questioned if it was worth it at all to spend any further resources on Boost.MPL given the fact new alternatives were coming up, such as Boost.Hana, which departed entirely from template metaprogramming, yet some argued TMP remained a competitive alternative for type computations in C++14 as it has been demonstrated by Peter Dimov in his impressive articles [4] on modern TMP.
Amidst all this, a proposal by Robert Ramey [5] caught my attention and inspired me to develop what I call Metal [6], a template metaprogramming library designed on the same core principles as Boost.MPL, but written from the very beginning to take full advantage of C++11. Metal was not designed to be a strict drop in replacement for Boost.MPL though, it was rather meant to be regarded as a modern version of Boost.MPL's original API, diverging only where it could really benefit from modern C++ and that essentially means gains of several orders of magnitude in performance** and lower memory consumption. At this point Metal is very close to where I originally intended to bring it and I think it's time I gauge interest from the community on a modest proposal I've been maturing along the past year.
As a modern approach to the same task that Boost.MPL was meant to address, I don't believe Boost would benefit at all from yet another TMP library that would essentially compete with Boost.MPL and even Boost.Hana in some cases, specially as maintainers of older code that depends on Boost.MPL would have to go through major refactoring efforts in order to benefit from such an addition to Boost. I would like to propose something different instead.
My proposal is to make Metal officially into a new revision of Boost.MPL's API, essentially MPL2 as the original proposal by Robert Ramey put it, merging both into one single TMP library. The idea would be to provide a thin proxy for the current Boost.MPL API which would have two backends configurable by preprocessor switches: the original implementation and a another one based on Metal. This way older code using Boost.MPL could see immediate gains on performance by selecting the newer backend on supported compilers, while at the same time legacy code maintained on older compilers could still rely on Boost.MPL's impressive ability to run virtually anywhere. On the other hand, newer projects interested on pure type computations would have the newer API entirely available to them.
This proposal also overcomes the problem of dealing with the maintainability of Boost.MPL, since it provides a way for smooth transition from legacy hacks required by ancient compilers into a cleaner and easier to maintain C++11 codebase, besides avoiding any breaking changes within existing code in the process. Furthermore, should this proposal make it into Boost, I would be naturally willing to take responsibility for the maintenance of Boost.MPL, which AFAIK has been maintained by the CMT for quite some time now, often with limited resources.
I would very much welcome your proposal, especially if you take on the maintenance of Boost.MPL for which I believe you are easily qualified to do. I would suggest in the beginning that the current Boost.MPL be the default and the Metal changes you make to it be controlled by a particular preprocessor switch and, of course, the need to compile using C++11 on up. Eventually you can make Metal the default whenever C++11 on up is used, and the current Boost.MPL the default whenever C++11 on up is not being used or a particular preprocessor switch is specified.
Comparing Metal and Boost.MPL there are a few noteworthy differences. Metafunction Classes have proven themselves entirely unnecessary and have thus been removed altogether in favour of pure Lambdas (in the Boost.MPL sense). Moreover, iterators make little sense in a functional world, so these too have been removed despite the fact they may easily be emulated in the new design. Moreover Metal develops the concept of optionals, that is, its metafunctions only have a nested ::type defined when they may be successfully computed, what may be safely tested using metal::is_just and may also be used to SFINAE out of miscomputations.
Finally I'd like to point out that Metal was designed to be portable across as many compilers as possible and three of the most popular ones are continuously tested using Travis and Appveyor: Clang 3.5+, GCC 4.8+ and MSVC 14 (2015).
I hope this is a reasonable proposal and I look forward into your opinions about it.
** Even though I haven't published any benchmarks yet, an example follows just to back my claims regarding performance (just tested on my personal laptop running linux):
//Generate a list containing 10 thousand instances of std::integral_constant, from 0 to 9999 using l = metal::enumerate_t<metal::integer<10000>>;
// GCC 5.3 ~0.4 s // Clang 3.7 ~0.5 s
//Transform a list containing 5 thousand numbers by squaring each element using l1 = metal::enumerate_t<metal::number<long long, 5000>>; using l2 = metal::transform_t<metal::pow<metal::_1, metal::integer<2>>, l1>;
// GCC 5.3 ~5.6 s // Clang 3.7 ~3.0 s
[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/257680 [2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/257983 [3]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/258843 [4]: http://pdimov.com/cpp2/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.html [5]: http://rrsd.com/blincubator.com/bi_suggestion/mpl-lite-or-mpl2/ [6]: http://brunocodutra.github.io/metal/
Regards, Bruno Dutra