Re: [boost] Re: MPL containers and algorithms

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-11 00:41:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>

> On Saturday 10 August 2002 03:43 pm, Paul Mensonides wrote:
> > I don't think that we should be worried about 10,000 element collections
> > right now anyway.  1) we don't have the tools (i.e. compilers) to deal with
> > it yet 2) we don't know _absolutely_ if it might even be worthwhile.  We
> > need to cross that bridge when we come to it.
>
> Just to poke my head in again -- AFAIK, Burton et al. were using heterogeneous
> value lists of 10,000 elements (multi-day compile times, but really fast
> code...).

The question is, would this be easier to do with an external generative program?

> > Count me as #4 also.  A good example that demonstrates the utitilty of the
> > sequence abstraction in the MPL would be a significant argument for it.  In
> > particular, one that shows that vector-like sequences outperform cons-style
> > lists *and* vice-versa in different scenarios.
>
> Again, I'd like to refer to the heterogeneous value lists used by Burton et
> al. Their use of larger heterogeneous value lists syntactically favors type
> vectors. I explained their approach in the thread "Potential use for multiple
> sequence types".

What do you mean by 'syntactically'?  Do you mean something like (a, b, c) is
easier on the eyes than (a, (b, (c, nil)))?  In that case, I agree.  However,
cons-style lists could be easily made to look like (a, b, c) for the convenience
of users.  10,000 elements would, of course, still take an obnoxiously long
time.

By the way, I fully believe that type-vectors are more efficient that cons-style
lists.  I just don't think that we need both.

Paul Mensonides