Re: [boost] Re: [MPL] unlambda primitive

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-12 22:15:19

Joel writes:
> I forgot to mention that the "outer" solution has another
> drawback: it is more expensive. 

At run-time, that is :).

> We have to make a full copy of
> the entire arguments tuple of each scope outwards. With the
> local vars solution, you only use what you need.
>
> I know, I know :), yes you can also make "outer" only get what
> it needs by inspecting the scopes. But that involves a lot of
> compile time processing for little gain. Implementation wise,
> the local variables solution gives more bang for the buck. 

The balance seems to be different at compile-time. 'scope' + 'outer'
are almost trivial to implement and also the winners syntax-wise
(IMO).

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering