Boost Users :
From: Christian Holmquist (c.holmquist_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-20 14:47:28
2008/7/19 Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>:
> Joel FALCOU wrote:
>> I just read the parts about the lazyness of fusion transformation. It
>> indeed escpaed me for a few seconds.
>> So basically the fusion transform are more suited for the runtime aprt of
>> the code rather than the compile-time one ?
> Right, fusion::transform is appropriate for mixed compile-time/run-time
> MPL is more appropriate for purely compile time constructs.
Maybe this could be stated more clearly in the docs? The last part of
fusion introduction section says:
"For example, there are times when it is convenient to work solely on
MPL using pure MPL sequences, then, convert them to Fusion sequences
as a final step before actual instantiation of real runtime objects
This little line got stuck into my head, and at least in my experience
using mpl algorithms&sequences is not only more convenient but also
required most of the time, prior to instantiate any fusion sequence to
do the runtime part.
Adding something like:
'Choose MPL over fusion when doing pure type calculations. Once the
static type calculation is finished, you can instantiate a fusion
sequence (link to result_of::as_vector<S>') for the runtime part.'
My 2 c..,
/ Christian Holmquist
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
> Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net