On 3/31/2015 7:43 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 3/31/2015 4:26 PM, Robert Ramey wrote: ...
But don't we already have MPL1 for that? If one has to make MPL2 more complex to support MPL1 - wouldn't that defeat the whole point of the project?
Which is exactly why I don't see the point in writing an MPL clone.
There isn't much point in writing a C++11 MPL clone, because the idiomatic way to do metaprogramming in C++11 is different.
If there is an idiomatic way to do metaprogramming in C++11, I'm sure I don't know what it is. But yeah, it's probably not the MPL.
This is why I'm saying that C++03 support is significant for MPL2.
Robert's question stands though. What is the point of a drop-in MPL replacement implemented for C++03 compilers? We already have that. -- Eric Niebler Boost.org http://www.boost.org