Paul Fultz II wrote:

...

https://github.com/pdimov/mp11/

It supports g++ 4.9 and above, clang 3.6 and above, msvc-12.0, 14.0, 14.1.

Whats the reason for not supporting gcc 4.8?

gcc 4.7 and 4.8 almost work. 4.8 fails a single test, mp_replace_if, because it for some reason strips the const qualifiers from the elements there. gcc 4.7 fails one additional test, mp_defer, that isn't critical and the error is probably in the test itself. https://travis-ci.org/pdimov/mp11/builds/207959624 I can #ifdef the mp_replace_if test (or casually remove the top-level consts, whistling innocently and pretending not to know anything about the matter) and declare 4.8 supported, but the compiler bug seems likely enough to bite someone. msvc-12.0 is much buggier, but when it works, it doesn't produce wrong results. TL;DR they work and will likely continue to work, I just don't support them "officially" at the moment.

Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

About the infamous tuple_cat challenge. tuple_cat doesn't append. tuple cat construct a tuple with the elements of its tuple-like parameters...

That's quite true. The tuple_cat implementation in the article is a straightforward reimplementation of Eric's tuple_cat, to illustrate the difference in styles. It fixes one limitation of the original, but others remain. Specifically, it doesn't work when the arguments are const qualified, when the tuple elements are move-only (although this is a defect in std::get), or for tuple-likes apart from std::pair. Fixing those defects one by one: 1. tuple can be fixed by replacing template R tuple_cat_( mp_list, mp_list, Tp tp ) { return R{ std::getKs::value(std::getIs::value(tp))... }; } with template R tuple_cat_( mp_list, mp_list, Tp tp ) { return R{ std::getKs::value(std::getIs::value(std::move(tp)))... }; } This shouldn't be necessary though; it's std::get that is broken here. 2. const-qualified tuples: template, typename std::remove_reference<Tp>::type...>> R tuple_cat( Tp &&... tp ) needs to be replaced with template<class T> using remove_cv_ref = std::remove_cv_t; template, remove_cv_ref<Tp>...>> R tuple_cat( Tp &&... tp ) and the same substitution needs to be done for using list1 = mp_list...>; 3. tuple-like types: template, remove_cv_ref<Tp>...>> R tuple_cat( Tp &&... tp ) needs to be further massaged as follows: template using element_ = std::tuple_element_t; template<class T> using from_tuple_like = mp_product, mp_list<T>>; template, from_tuple_like...>> R tuple_cat( Tp &&... tp ) and similarly for list1: using list1 = mp_list...>; With these changes, this now works: { std::array const t1{ 1, 2 }; std::array const t2{ 3.0f, 4.0f, 5.0f }; std::array t3{ std::unique_ptr<int>{ new int } }; using expected = std::tuple; auto result = ::tuple_cat( t1, std::move( t2 ), std::move( t3 ) ); static_assert( std::is_same::value, "" ); PRINT_TYPE( decltype(result) ); print_tuple( result ); }

Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

...

About your mp_count example. Compare your definition with this the HOF one

template using mp_count_if = mp_plus;

First, you need to keep in mind that the code in the article compiled and worked at the time on the compilers that I had available, which included Visual Studio 2013. Using mp_transform was a good way to crash MSVC and remains so to this day, which is why the implementations often inline it by hand.

Second, the above doesn't work because P<T>::value is allowed to be 42. I'm not sure this should be the case, but if it was, then, the predicate

Le 19/03/2017 à 12:06, Peter Dimov via Boost a écrit : passed to transform should be a little bit adapted. |mp_plus<|||mp_transform_f|>

...

template using mp_count = mp_count_if>;

This - assuming that is_same_t is a template alias - cannot be made to work. Template aliases are evaluated eagerly and is_same_t<_1, V> gives you mp_true or mp_false depending on whether V is _1 (the literal _1) or not.

You either have to use std::is_same<_1, V> and make the algorithms take and evaluate such lambdas by replacing placeholders and looking at ::type, or you need to bind or curry is_same_t. mp_bind::invoke, if it existed (it's a few lines, I'll probably add it) or mp_quote::invoke.

You know what I mean. is_same<_1,V> should be a meta-function class. Being able to use HOF makes meta-programming code simpler. I was not thinking on making the algorithms do any analysis of the place holders. I was just thinking on providing some specializations template <class T> struct is_same<_1, T> { template <class U> using invoke = is_same; }; or using something like Meta lambdas template <class T> struct is_same<_1, T> : lambda<_1, lazy::is_same<_1,T> {}; mp_quote would work as well.

(I'm considering renaming ::invoke to something shorter such as ::fn.)

BTW, mp_quote does more than quoting. It is doing some binding. I've proposed the names it bind_front/bind_back that follows the new bind_front/bind_back for normal programming (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0356r0.html) Have you considered the possibility to provide algorithms taking HOF as well as template aliases?

...

BTW, your mp_plus doesn't take a type list as parameter.

It doesn't. There's an annoying dilemma here as most functions are useful in either form. mp_second<L> for instance takes a list, but mp_second would also have been useful. Not sure what to do here.

Maybe we need both.

...

About mp_contains. I've not yet finished the second article yet. IMO, we need different concepts as we can have different implementations. I believe mp_contains is an example where we can have different implementations for type list and for type set.

It does, see mp_contains and mp_set_contains in the actual mp11 source. The latter requires the elements to be unique, although the data structure is still a list. I like Lisp.

Yes, I've see it now. BTW I'm missing how we build a mp set. It is with inherit<>? Could we have an empty set? Why mp11 provides two ways to insert elements in a set push_back and push_front? I guess that we can use all the other mp_ functions that work for type list with type set.

...

About C++11, C++14, C++17. I believe that meta-programming can profit a lot of C++17 fold expressions.

That belief is not necessarily true, but there are places where fold expressions are obviously useful, such as mp_plus. mp_fold can also be rewritten in their terms, but the performance gains are disappointingly small, although it does considerably increase the list size limit that can be handled without the compiler crashing.

We'll add BOOST_NO_CXX17_FOLD_EXPRESSIONS at some point, presumably. Support is currently a bit hard to detect as Clang doesn't define an __is_feature for it. (I already had to make creative use of fold expressions to work around a Clang 3.9+ bug with mp_find.) I understand that we are not yet ready to write portable C++17 code.

Best, Vicente

Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

Have you considered the possibility to provide algorithms taking HOF as well as template aliases?

In the middle of a discussion about whether we need four metaprogramming libraries, you are asking me to provide a fifth. :-) mp11 is fundamentally based on template aliases. Yes, this is constraining for people who are accustomed to higher-order programming. The point is not to be all things to all people; higher-order programming is well covered by the other contenders in the field. I realize that this way of thinking does not sit well with some that would prefer we settle on a single library.