From 0702f1720a1475337bace08105a7fa85d37c67dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Dimov Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:37:33 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Cosmetic doc fixes --- doc/article/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.adoc | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/article/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.adoc b/doc/article/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.adoc index 64cc1af..e05b815 100644 --- a/doc/article/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.adoc +++ b/doc/article/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.adoc @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ template class F> struct X X; // works! ``` These language improvements allow for {cpp}11 metaprogramming that is -substantially different than its idomatic {cpp}03 equivalent. Boost.MPL is no +substantially different than its idiomatic {cpp}03 equivalent. Boost.MPL is no longer good enough, and __something must be done__. But what? ## Type lists and mp_rename @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ difference between `mp_size` and `mp_rename`. Whereas I made a point of template struct mp_size_impl> ``` Is this really necessary? Can we not use the same technique in the -implementation of `mp_size` as we did in mp_rename? +implementation of `mp_size` as we did in `mp_rename`? ``` template struct mp_size_impl; @@ -251,7 +251,8 @@ To illustrate it, let me introduce the primitive `mp_length`. It's similar to takes a variadic parameter pack and returns its length; or, stated differently, it returns its number of arguments: ``` -template using mp_length = std::integral_constant; +template using mp_length = + std::integral_constant; ``` How would we implement `mp_size` in terms of `mp_length`? One option is to just substitute the implementation of the latter into the former: