feedc0de/boost_mp11
1
0
Fork 0
forked from boostorg/mp11
Code Pull Requests Activity

Cosmetic doc fixes

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Peter Dimov
2017-10-24 17:37:33 +03:00
parent 2ee7a21903
commit 0702f1720a
1 changed files with 4 additions and 3 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
doc/article/simple_cxx11_metaprogramming.adoc
View File

@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ template<template<class... T> class F> struct X
X<add_pointer>; // 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<class... T> struct mp_size_impl<mp_list<T...>>
```
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<class L> 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<class... T> using mp_length = std::integral_constant<std::size_t, sizeof...(T)>;
template<class... T> using mp_length =
std::integral_constant<std::size_t, sizeof...(T)>;
```
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: