From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-14 14:52:39
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Tobias Schwinger
> >>Only counting "real" parameters here allows us to build
> such a cascade
> >>for arities ranging from zero to "OUR_MAX_ARITY_LIMIT"
> without having
> >>to deal with the two special cases that there are no nullary member
> >>functions and that we need to go up to OUR_ARITY_LIMIT+1 for member
> >>function invocations if the context reference is taken into account.
> > Okay, I've dealt with that issue. But it's a (really) minor one.
> > Generating these things with the preprocessor should
> usually be done
> > with vertical repetition (you'll get lousy compile times and no
> > debuggability otherwise), which makes that sort of iteration bounds
> > adjustment trivial.
> This sounds like using two (slow preprocessor-) loops in
> client code for members and non-members, where using one
> would be appropriate...
> I agree it can be "minor", but I currently fail to see it's
> "less minor" than your complaint in the first place.
> I'm having some trouble understanding the second part of the
> above paragraph.
> What could "otherwise" possibly refer to in this context ?
> And isn't vertical repetition the slowest form of PP
> repetition there is ? Can you perhaps help me with it ?
Actually, on slow preprocessors vertical repetition is *significantly* faster.
The only problem is that you cannot entirely encapsulate it in a single macro.
If you show me what you want to generate, I can help you with this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk