From: Chris Smith (smitty_one_each_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-07 20:58:04
David Abrahams wrote:
> "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>
>>"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:ud66jde56.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Careful, Dave. In general, metaprogramming doesn't need to use
>>>types as its underlying computation mechanism.
>>
>>Right. C++ could allow mutable values at compile time to enable
>>metaprogramming, whilst leaving the types immutable.
>>
>>
>>>[...]
>>>In fact, I predict that if support for concepts is built into C++ we will
>>>eventually run out of rope even for the things we do today with TMP
>>>and we will *need* a new approach. I sure hope that approach
>>>can look more like regular C++ programming than TMP does.
>>
>>Why wait? Maybe we should start designing a new approach right
>>now. ;>
>
>
> I hope to work with Daveed Vandevoorde on his metacode effort at some
> point.
>
Is it such a bug that TMP does not "look more like regular C++ programming"?
I submit that some visual distinction is helpful (while not endorsing
the current baroque stylings) for grasping when stuff is happening while
reading the code.
Best,
Chris