From: Daniel Wallin (dalwan01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-16 19:39:35
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> Yeah. In this case keyword "value" couldn't be typed. Ok. I slightly
> reworked my code see attached. Now it supports both typed and non-typed
> keywords. all in 120 lines (I am sure it could be made smaller by more
> effective mpl use).
It's only 120 (instead of 800) lines because you haven't implemented the
features and workarounds that our library has. It's not like we've
written ~600 lines of useless code that can just be eliminated..
>>>>and with the problem of keyword coupling (because of the integer
>>>What do you mean by coupling? That we need to supply unique integer
>>Yes. You can't develop keywords independently.
> I do not see to many differences from your solution. You also need unique id
> for the keyword, which you then organize in ordered structure. So
> essentially getting the same result.
But the type should never be part of the keyword! It has to be coupled
with the function. Keywords needs to be reusable between different
>>Yeah, but you don't need PS to cause ETI and other issues on VC <= 7.0
> Do we still care?
I don't know if you do. But there are certainly other people who do.
> Enough to affect the design/implementation?
We have made NO compromises in the design of this library to help less
capable compilers. What does it matter if the implementation contains
workarounds? Why do you care?
-- Daniel Wallin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk