From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-03 07:21:35
David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
> >> Why an mpl::list<>? What's special about that structurue? Why not
> >> mpl::vector?
> > The sequence just needs to support certain operations, e.g. push_front,
> > reverse, etc. So, mpl::vector<> should work too (I never checked).
> If you're reversing the sequence, all your arguments about requiring
> mutability for efficiency reasons are invalid. You might as well do
I don't think so, I'm only reversing the sequence *after* performing other
mutating operations on it. Here's an example from the current implementation
(context_type_list is assembled from multiple InnerInitial lists):
template< class CommonContext, class DestinationState >
typedef typename mpl::reverse< typename mpl::push_front<
>::type >::type type;
[I know that this code needs improvement]
> > Don't know, I can't think of anything that would keep you from using
> > deque or vector. I guess it would be best to document the exact
> > requirements and make measurements so that I can tell the user which
> > of the standard mpl sequences are best.
> Not a bad idea, but I wouldn't go overboard. In this case the first
> priority should be to lift needless restrictions.
I've actually already added two to-do items. The one dealing with the
restrictions appears before the measurements.
> The restrictions
> you're using don't even neccessarily lead to better efficiency.
Right, I got that :)
-- 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk