Re: [boost] [review][mp11] Formal review of Mp11

Brook Milligan wrote:

...

1. Should Mp11 be accepted into Boost? Please state all conditions for acceptance explicitly.

I feel Mp11 should definitely be accepted.

Thanks Brook. Zach Laine wrote:

This is one of the things with which I'm struggling when considering the use of mp11, or Brigand, or any of the other recent offerings out there.

I've found TMP so *easy* in 11 and later, that I've entirely stop using a library to do it. I'm trying to understand why anyone would -- that's not my making an argument, just failure of imagination. :)

It gets really easy in 17 and later, as you no longer need mp_all because of fold expressions and there are all kinds of ad-hoc primitives in the standard library so you can get by. So for instance if you have a pack T... you can check if all those types are const (toy example) by doing (std::is_const_v<T> && ...), instead of mp_all or gathering the types into an mp_list L and then using mp_all_of. But even then, mp_unique or mp_remove(_if) are no fun to write by hand. In short, if what you want to do is not a simple pack expansion, you probably want to use the library. That, or reimplement it. :-)