From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-02 09:22:56
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "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.
I didn't mean to suggest that they're better in that regard. If the
lookup time proves to be an obstacle, then the sequence can be copied
into a mpl::vector, or Peder's compile time variables. The real
advantage is losing the extra template parameter, which might not make
much of a difference at all. But it might make the code a bit cleaner
and more 'functional'.
It's probably not worth your time looking into it. But I might have a go
when you release your next version (so I'm not working against a moving
target). And I'd like to wait for the new version of mpl.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk