Re: [Boost-users] [phoenix] V2, V3 and the amount of memory needed by the compiler to just include them

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [phoenix] V2, V3 and the amount of memory needed by the compiler to just include them
From: Mathieu - (ptr.jetable_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-01 04:08:25

On 1 March 2011 04:45, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 3/1/2011 8:07 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Forgive me, but that's a crap job that would be wasted on a GSoC
>>> project. :-D
>>
>> I think you're projecting a bit, Eric.  If I were a GSoC volunteer,
>> making dramatic speedups in important Boost libraries by refactoring
>> them would be very attractive to me.  Not everybody feels ready to
>> design a whole new library.
>
> Whoops, I've mouthed off again. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to imply
> that it isn't a worthy goal, just that it requires little creativity.
> But I'll allow that my notion of what constitutes a worthwhile GSoC
> project may be biased.
>
> But if a student were to also use rvalue refs and variadic templates in
> places to eliminate unnecessary overloads, that would require something
> beyond the abilities of a trained monkey. (Oops, I did it again!)

Well as a student I'll give my opinion... I agree with you that a
no-brainer project would be a no-go for a GSoC project for sure.
Now the problem is in the definition of "no-brainer". Surely if it
consists only in a basic search and replace it might be a bit simple
(monkey work as you say :p), but if it's a bit more complicated and in
the end it decreases compiles time a lot it might be interesting
despite the "no-creativity" part.
On the other hand, I, for one, do not feel like designing  a whole new
proto from scratch as a GSoC proto...

Mathieu-