[metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement

Boost - Dev mailing list
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

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement

Boost - Dev mailing list
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.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Edward Diener via Boost <
[hidden email]> 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!

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
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

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement

Boost - Dev mailing list
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Michael Caisse via Boost <
[hidden email]> 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.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement

Louis Dionne
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Michael Caisse via Boost <
[hidden email]> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [metal] Formal Review - Request for Endorsement

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
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

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost