Am 20.03.2017 um 16:00 schrieb Peter Dimov via Boost:
Deniz Bahadir wrote:
As mentioned before, I think some kind of comparison between such TMP libraries is required.
Error C6301: passive voice used: "is required"
Who should produce this comparison?
The answer to that question is one of the goals of the current discussion, if I understood Michael correctly. ;-) But jokes aside: I would recommend, the authors of the different TMP libraries create a short list of the concepts/features used and the problems and use-cases they want to address with their libraries. (Probably, such a list should also be available for Boost.Hana and possibly Boost.MPL. Although I doubt that anybody would be pleased to just continue using Boost.MPL instead of one of the new TMP-libraries.) Experienced/interested TMP developers/users could probably help doing so. Additionally, users of TMP libraries (others or some of the to-be-reviewed ones) should mention their use-cases or problems they would like to see addressed. (E.g. as I did in my former email; hoping for a "drop-in" replacement of Boost.MPL for other Boost libs.) Checking which of the libraries addresses what needs might help to find consensus in what really should and can be addressed and which of the new libraries does the best job. Maybe we will realize their might be two TMP libraries that best become joined into a single one to address almost all of the user's needs? Then such a joined TMP lib might be the best candidate to become reviewed and adopted by Boost? And just in case, you might ask me the same question. ;-) The last step, the checking of addressed needs should probably be done by all readers of the mailing-list that are interested in this topic via discussion on this mailing-list. As a result we might get a nice pre-selection for a review candidate and as a side-effect gather more reviewers, because they already participated in the pre-selection so that the review-barrier is/feels lowered. I hope that is not too unrealistic. Deniz