From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-29 12:54:38
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> MWCW is just wicked fast at template instantiation, period. That doesn't
> show a preference for one or the other structure, though.
What I meant is exactly the same. There is no clear relationship between the
task at hand and the C++ compile-time structure to be used. Then why bother.
>> The way C++'s template engine is structured, however,
> > me to think that dot-lists are just fine.
> It's structured differently in different implementations.
I was actually referring to the offering in terms of language, not
implementation. So to rephrase: C++'s template engine works very naturally
to dot-typelists, and is not natural with others.
> Until very recently, MWCW had a hard-coded limit on template nesting
> If you want to support CWPro 7.2, you might need to use long type vectors
> in lieu of type lists just to avoid running into those limits. You can do
> as much loop unrolling as you want to; it won't help if you can't even
> represent your inputs or results.
Let's think we did not need to support bad compilers for a second. Would
separation of data structures and algorithms still be a design decision for
> > An s-expression is a tree alright. You wouldn't have to flatten it in
> > to process it. LISP provides many examples of elegant tree processing,
> > all it uses as data structures is the dot list.
> Yes, but you need to flatten it in order to *treat it as a sequence* if
> of your sequence algorithms are hard-coded to work on slists.
I'm completely at a loss. S-expressions *are* trees.
> Hmm, either way you now you have support for different data structures...
It's a wonder LISP programmers never felt the need for that... and they do
trees all the time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk