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
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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk