Re: [boost] [function types][review] (repost with new formatting)

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.

Regards,
Paul Mensonides