Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-02 15:06:00

Daniel James <daniel_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

Apparently it's already on the main trunk.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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