Boost logo

Boost :

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-11 21:04:19

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

> It's simple, intuitive, and efficient. All information for each element is in
> a single place (a typelist would require separation of the type from the
> value, and create a ton of work for the compiler's inliner). Why would we
> want to use a typelist for this?

> > 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.
> Burton et al. were working with finite element analysis, and that means two
> dimensional random access. Would you still use a typelist for that?

I am not proposing that typelists are the be-all-and-end-all. I'm simply saying
that we don't need both. Furthermore, I don't think that it is practical at
this point in time to use *huge* numbers of elements in a compile time
container. What purpose is there to using typelists when type-vectors are so
much faster? When you are talking about a huge number of elements, that is
exactly the case when typelists are _slow_ and also exactly the case when
type-vectors are an implementation _nightmare_.

Paul Mensonides

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at