On 6/20/15 6:57 AM, Louis Dionne wrote:
Joel de Guzman
writes: [...]
Let me just make this clear: I am for Hanna's acceptance into boost. It is cool and well implemented. Many people will find a use for it. It's just not for me.
I'm fine with that, really. But just to be clear, would you use a TMP library that would be basically Hana core:
- an efficient tuple implementation - optimized algorithms (filter, transform, for_each, nothing fancy) - no fancy FP concepts - a couple of header files, no more
Would you use that, or would you still prefer to DIY?
Yes! Definitely! Isn't that what this thread, started by David, is all about? Let me quote: My one question, as I read though the implementation, is "can the core benefits of this library be achived with a simpler 'light' version of this implementation?". While I appreciate the attempt to encode a Haskell-style typeclass hierarchy, I feel like that is not the core competency of hana and should be a separate library and discussion. As it is, this is a 32k header mega library. I'd prefer several small, highly-targeted, highly-composable libraries. Make it as simple as Eric's or Peter's libs, since that's what you will be up against. "a couple of header files" will be fine fine, but a single header file would be super cool! (P.S. phoenix-lite is a single header file) Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.ciere.com http://boost-spirit.com http://www.cycfi.com/