From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-27 05:57:15
Alexander Nasonov <alnsn-boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Peder Holt <peder.holt <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> On 5/27/05, Alexander Nasonov <alnsn-boost <at> yandex.ru> wrote:
>> > Sizes may become very huge, though.
>> If you replace your function with:
>> char (&foo());
>> you will get an overflow when calculating e.g. sizeof(foo()) /
>> and the result will be garbage.
> That's right.
> Huge arrays can be replaced with tuples.
> tuple<char(&), char(&), char(&), char(&)> foo();
Why not an mpl::vector for that matter?
It's easy enough to extract each dimension of an array with partial
specialization. Just do the representation backwards:
char (& foo( whatever ) ) [CODEN][CODEN-1]...[CODE1][CODE0]
Steve Dewhurst was here before us.
> sizeof(get<0>(foo())); sizeof(get<1>(foo())); sizeof(get<2>(foo()));
> Not sure if it compiles with boost::tuple.
Inefficient at compile time. get<N> is O(N) each time, thus the above
is O(N^2); that's part of what's behind the fusion library.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk