[metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement
Dear Community, I'd like to formalize what has been known to many for some time now and request the formal review of Metal, a modern C++14 library designed to make template metaprogramming intuitive and effectively replace Boost.MPL. Klemens Morgenstern has kindly offered to manage the review process. The library is available on github at https://github.com/brunocodutra/metal The full documentation is available online at http://brunocodutra.github.io/metal/ Up to date benchmarks are uploaded daily to metaben.ch Great effort has been put into making Metal as portable to different compilers as possible. Currently, the following compilers are tested in continuous integration using Travis and Appveyor: * GCC 4.7 and above * Clang 3.4 and above * Xcode 6.4 and above * Visual Studio 14 (2015) and above * MinGW 5 and above Complying with the new Boost policy, I'd like to kindly request those interested in seeing Metal in boost to take a look at it and endorse this request for formal review. Regards, Bruno
On 4/9/2017 12:43 PM, Bruno Dutra via Boost wrote:
Dear Community,
I'd like to formalize what has been known to many for some time now and request the formal review of Metal, a modern C++14 library designed to make template metaprogramming intuitive and effectively replace Boost.MPL. Klemens Morgenstern has kindly offered to manage the review process.
The library is available on github at
https://github.com/brunocodutra/metal
The full documentation is available online at
http://brunocodutra.github.io/metal/
Up to date benchmarks are uploaded daily to metaben.ch
Great effort has been put into making Metal as portable to different compilers as possible. Currently, the following compilers are tested in continuous integration using Travis and Appveyor:
* GCC 4.7 and above * Clang 3.4 and above * Xcode 6.4 and above * Visual Studio 14 (2015) and above * MinGW 5 and above
Complying with the new Boost policy, I'd like to kindly request those interested in seeing Metal in boost to take a look at it and endorse this request for formal review.
I will endorse your request for a formal review. I have followed Metal on my own for awhile and would like to see it reviewed for possible inclusion in Boost.
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:43 PM, Bruno Dutra via Boost wrote:
Complying with the new Boost policy, I'd like to kindly request those interested in seeing Metal in boost to take a look at it and endorse this request for formal review.
I will endorse your request for a formal review. I have followed Metal on my own for awhile and would like to see it reviewed for possible inclusion in Boost.
Thank you Edward, I appreciate your support!
On 4/9/17 09:43, Bruno Dutra via Boost wrote:
Dear Community,
I'd like to formalize what has been known to many for some time now and request the formal review of Metal, a modern C++14 library designed to make template metaprogramming intuitive and effectively replace Boost.MPL. Klemens Morgenstern has kindly offered to manage the review process.
<snip> There has been some talk/encouragement to review several of the competing metaprogramming libraries at the same time. Did this idea fall apart? michael -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Michael Caisse via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 4/9/17 09:43, Bruno Dutra via Boost wrote:
Dear Community,
I'd like to formalize what has been known to many for some time now and request the formal review of Metal, a modern C++14 library designed to make template metaprogramming intuitive and effectively replace Boost.MPL. Klemens Morgenstern has kindly offered to manage the review process.
<snip>
There has been some talk/encouragement to review several of the competing metaprogramming libraries at the same time. Did this idea fall apart? http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
There just hasn't been a consensus yet on how to go about it AFAICT, but it does look like the discussions have stalled a little bit, so maybe this is a good opportunity to catch up.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Michael Caisse via Boost <
boost@.boost
wrote:
On 4/9/17 09:43, Bruno Dutra via Boost wrote:
Dear Community,
I'd like to formalize what has been known to many for some time now and request the formal review of Metal, a modern C++14 library designed to make template metaprogramming intuitive and effectively replace Boost.MPL. Klemens Morgenstern has kindly offered to manage the review process.
<snip>
There has been some talk/encouragement to review several of the competing metaprogramming libraries at the same time. Did this idea fall apart? <http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>;
There just hasn't been a consensus yet on how to go about it AFAICT, but it does look like the discussions have stalled a little bit, so maybe this is a good opportunity to catch up.
I think this post [1] by Odin Holmes does a good job at summarizing the different tradeoffs between the libraries. A few weeks ago, we talked about different tradeoffs on the C++ Slack for quite some time, but we never reached a consensus. I was taking notes, and I think the only thing everybody agreed on was: 1. speed is an important criteria 2. eager evaluation is the way to go Given that all the libraries are eager, and all of them are pretty fast (by MPL standards at least), this is not groundbreaking. I'd like to reiterate that while we clearly need a pure-type TMP library, I think it would be a disservice to the community to have more than one. The libraries are very similar to an end user that's not a TMP expert, and having multiple libraries would just cause confusion. I'm not sure what's the path forward if the library authors can't reach a consensus. We could perhaps start talking about the contentious issues on this list and try to see what the greater community thinks too. Louis [1]: http://odinthenerd.blogspot.com/2017/03/tradeoffs-of-tmp-mpl-design.html -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/metal-Formal-Review-Request-for-Endorseme... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 04/10/2017 07:29 PM, Louis Dionne via Boost wrote:
I think this post [1] by Odin Holmes does a good job at summarizing the different tradeoffs between the libraries. A few weeks ago, we talked about different tradeoffs on the C++ Slack for quite some time, but we never reached a consensus. I was taking notes, and I think the only thing
I feel that we as a community could to be better about informing each other about such events that are relevant to Boost. I also noticed that there has been a C++Chat on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRFKCsysOqk
participants (5)
-
Bjorn Reese -
Bruno Dutra -
Edward Diener -
Louis Dionne -
Michael Caisse