From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-02 08:41:06
"Daniel James" <daniel_at_[hidden]> wrote
> Using mpl views might be better. Currently the implementation works by
> passing a list/vector to encode and adding to it. Instead encode could
> just return the sequence for it's sub-type, which can then be combined
> using mpl::joint_view, or similar.
Note that push_back<mpl::vector<...> > requires just one template
instantiation. I am not sure why views are better. And views definitely
don't provide constant-time lookup.
> For example, in the current implementation:
> template<class V, class T> struct encode_type_impl<V, const T>
> typename encode_type<
> typename detail::push_back<
> , mpl::int_<CONST_ID> >::type
> , T>::type
> Would become something like:
> template<class T> struct encode_type_impl<const T>
> typedef boost::mpl::joint_view<
> boost::mpl::single_view<mpl::int_<CONST_ID> >,
> The big advantage here is that if T has already been encoded (even as
> part of a completely different type) it can be reused. For example if
> the following were encoded:
> std::pair<int, int>
> std::pair<std::pair<int, int>, std::pair<int, int> >
> The existing versions would encode std::pair<int, int> 3 times, this
> would do it once.
Agreed, but this should be weighted against not having direct access.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk