Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 16:34:09

Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Andreas Huber wrote:
>> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>>>>> That's interesting. I was under the impression that exactly such
>>>>>> a list of alternate implementation techniques would not satisfy
>>>>>> you, because it would in no way show that the design I chose is
>>>>>> the best performance-wise.
>>>>> Why not? That would be the main point.
>>>> I don't understand. A list of alternate techniques would show that
>>>> none of these techniques satisfies the requirements but it doesn't
>>>> say anything why the current FSM implementation performs worse than
>>>> any of these techniques.
>>> You don't just list the techniques. You explain them and summarize
>>> their performance characteristics.
>> That's what I meant. This will still not show how "good" the current
>> design is. It will only show that the current design satisfies
>> requirements that other designs don't and explain the techniques (and
>> performance characteristics) I have chosen to satisfy the
>> requirements. Whether those techniques are the best performance-wise
>> is a completely different matter.
> I don't understand the destinction you're trying to make.

We've discussed that in the other thread...

Andreas Huber
When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap
from the address shown in the header.

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