[boost] Re: MultiMethod/Visitor Interest

From: Preston A. Elder (prez_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-20 00:27:46

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:15:10 -0400, David Abrahams wrote:

I am currently using Jesse's multimethods in a project of mine, and I
should state up front they work very well from my own usage of them.  I've
also been helping him getting them to compile properly on Linux/GCC (3.3.x
and 3.4.x).

> How does this stack up against http://tinyurl.com/5qxky?
I did not know about this before using Jesse's multimethods - though I
have to agree with Jesse, that requiring the end-user to implement some
function or another is not appealing.  But then, I looked at the above
URL, and found it difficult to follow, mainly because the example is mixed
in with the rest of the code, making it very difficult to follow, or use
in a generic way without going through it with a fine tooth comb to
decipher it.

As for a speed comparison, etc.  I cannot say, however Jesse's
implementation is quite fast enough for my needs.  Jesse probably needs to
do some more work to allow more than two arguments to the functions used
in his multimethods, and to allow it to skip the lookup code for
parameters that are rigidly defined (ie. non-polymorphic), however, from
an end-users point of view, his code IS quite easy to implement and use.

I would love to see Jesse's code make it into boost - though, I would also
like to see a version of the multimethods implementation in the URL you
pasted that is not inter-mingled with a specific example (ie. the
implementation of the feature, and the example in separate files) as well,
especially if the requirement for implementing a specific function can be
bypassed.

This kind of functionality greatly interests me :)

-- 
PreZ
Founder
The Neuromancy Society
http://www.neuromancy.net