Eric Niebler-4 wrote
On 3/4/2015 3:04 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
I think that building an MPL replacement without sequences would be an exercise in futility. The bulk of my MPL usage is handling MPL sequences.
Agreed. Also, I don't think the world needs a drop-in replacement for the MPL.
I'm not convinced either - but it's better than trying to fix up MPL using modern C++ to make it easier to maintain.
The language has changed and so has our thinking. It least, it's not clear to me that iterators make sense in a metaprogramming environment.
I would agree to that. I would also expect that sequences should be separate from metafunctions. I'm not unhappy with leaving MPL as it is. But there have been concerns that it's hard to maintain and a lot more complicated than it has to be given the facilities of modern compilers. I also believe that if meta-functions were separated, they could eventually be considered for inclusion to the standard. To my mind, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have type_traits without metafunctions. Note that I'm suggesting that the MPL be replaced but rather part should be rebuilt as a new library - maybe it would better to call it meta-function library. -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/MPL-lite-or-MPL-2-A-modest-proposal-tp467... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.