From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-29 04:05:46
From: "John Max Skaller" <skaller_at_[hidden]>
> Jeremy Siek wrote:
> > I am concerned with the compile-time and complexity issues of bringing
> > the whole tuple library when all I need is a two-argument bind().
> That's a pragmatic concern at the moment, but I'd like to suggest
> that the tuples library, when Standardised, should strongly
> recommend support for tuples of up to 10,000 elements.
> In other words, there'd be no header file at all,
> the compiler would have to generate instances on demand.
> This gets rid of the compile time overhead completely,
> allows a reasonable limit on the size of tuples,
> allows important optimisations, and may be mandatory
> for generalising certain other library components
This would probably be a step in the right direction, but the more important
issue is how do you get from the function call expression
f(x, y, z, 5)
a tuple containing the arguments.
Writing 10,000 operator()'s doesn't feel right. :-)
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk