alternative tuple implementation (was: [boost] Re: Any interest f or a parser class?)

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-17 09:16:04

David Abrahams wrote:
> I never understood what the benefits of doing it differently 
> might be, so I had nothing to say. If it is just an implementation detail,

That's my idea, at least, and I think it's doable (i.e. it's possible to do
it with the current tuple interface being untouched).

> and it avoids generating lots of template instantiations 
> at a fairly low cost in preprocessing time, that it's a 
> marvelous idea.

I am not sure about the number of template instantiations - it might be
pretty much the same, - but, for one thing, they (instantiations) won't be
nested, so it's very likely that such implementation will also take a less
time to compile (compilers with EDG front-end is a different story, and
there are ways to deal with them :). But the main advantage would be, of
course, a size/speed of the generated code.

Aleksey