David Abrahams wrote:
"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:ud66jde56.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
[...] Careful, Dave. In general, metaprogramming doesn't need to use types as its underlying computation mechanism.
Right. C++ could allow mutable values at compile time to enable metaprogramming, whilst leaving the types immutable.
[...] In fact, I predict that if support for concepts is built into C++ we will eventually run out of rope even for the things we do today with TMP and we will *need* a new approach. I sure hope that approach can look more like regular C++ programming than TMP does.
Why wait? Maybe we should start designing a new approach right now. ;>
I hope to work with Daveed Vandevoorde on his metacode effort at some point.
Is it such a bug that TMP does not "look more like regular C++ programming"? I submit that some visual distinction is helpful (while not endorsing the current baroque stylings) for grasping when stuff is happening while reading the code. Best, Chris