From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-13 18:05:28
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terje Slettebø" <tslettebo_at_[hidden]>
> I understand, from your later posting, that you meant "pow" here.
> What about them? We are talking about metaprogramming here, not run-time
> programming. If you want to evaluate it using run-time values, then of
> course the algorithm has to be run-time, as well.
> This is no argument against "pow", as it's outside the scope of
> metaprogramming. What's your point? And what would you suggest instead?
It is definitely not outside the bounds of metaprogramming. If one of the
arguments is fixed at compile time, the loop can be unrolled with
metaprogramming. That is important because that is one of the major purposes of
metaprogramming--doing something at compile-time instead of runtime to increase
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk