From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-17 23:37:32
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]>
> > What is your basis for that conclusion? Are you speculating?
> > I happen to know that in one popular compiler implementation, name
> > mangling is the limiting factor, such that instantiation depth has a
> > direct impact on speed.
> Okay. I was speculating. However, it isn't worth bending over
backward for the
> sake of the name mangling inefficiency of compiler X. We should be
> push compiler vendors not coddle them.
> By the way, which compiler are you referring to? I primarily use
> which is definitely not the most efficient compiler out there--though
it is the
> most compliant. :)
Unless you have the very latest copy of Comeau, you're using the
compiler I'm referring to. There's a whole host of others with the same
front-end, and the same problems.
> > > . That compiler-defined limit is really only there to protect
> > > the compiler from recursing indefinitely:
> > But in some compilers it is hard-coded (e.g. recent CodeWarrior
> > releases)
> But it is likely that this will not remain as meta-programming becomes
Some of us need to make this stuff work on real compilers, today.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk