Re: [boost] Overloading a function taking a boost::function

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-12 20:40:01

> Sorry, I guess I should've given some explanation. I didn't mean to say
> that. I was just trying to show that we can count arguments at compile time
> for compilers without PTS.

Ah.  Okay.

> Furthermore, I am not proposing that you
> change
> > your python library to use a preprocessor library that is not part of
> > Boost--obviously.
>
> Sorry, it wasn't obvious to me. Since I complained about the slow EDG
> preprocessor several weeks ago you've posted several re-writes of my code
> which used your faster technique. It's really cool and interesting, but I
> have my hands full with the techniques I already have, so I can't start
> using yours at the moment.

I'm not expecting you to.  I would appreciate it if you could at least comment
on it.  I'm trying to make it as intuitive as possible--as easy to use as
possible, but, of course, it is easy for me to use (since I wrote it, and
thoroughly understand it) so I'm somewhat blinded by that. :)

> > I don't even know Python for that matter--it is not my area.
> > Without better support for expansion and debuggable output, the
> preprocessor
> > library is seriously lacking.
>
> I tend to agree.

:) In time, the speed issue will cease to exist.  If it was only for that
reason, I would consider it a hack.

> > You, as a user of it, should have at least a mild
> > interest in that--
>
> definitely! But you've already proven long ago that your technique is fast.

Yes, but I am trying to polish it up.  Make it faster, easier to use, more
debuggable, etc..  There are massive improvements behind the scenes of the
various examples that I've posted over time.

To me, (and of course I'm biased) the code seems pretty localized and intuitive,
but there might be improvements that others can think of that I have missed (or
whatever).

> > given that you have a pre-expanded version already (which
> > defeats the purpose of generating it with the preprocessor and makes the
> > preprocessor usage of intellectual value only).
>
> Not exactly. If someone needs more than the 15 arguments I am generating
> they can get that just from the compiler command-line. However, that's
> pretty unlikely, isn't it?

Yes, however it takes significantly longer to do the 16th instead of say the
10th.  The library needs to be improved to the point that none of this needs to
be manually written (or formatted).

> I'd be very interested, if it were done. I believe that your techniques are
> effective.

I just sent Vesa an updated version.  The main issue that I have, is that I
don't want to duplicate functionality that is already in Boost.Preprocessor
library.

Paul Mensonides