From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-19 08:09:21
"Matt Calabrese" <rivorus_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Well, I was bored so I put together a simple compressed_tuple anyway as an
> example of how it could be implemented fairly elegantly and account for a
> large number of elements. Right now it's set to work with up to 10 elements,
> but that can be adjusted by modifying the #define at the top. The difference
> from compressed pair is that storage is not shared if two types are used
> that are the same empty type. A get member function template is supported,
> but not a non-member version, though one could be easily added.
Ouch! Are you sure you wouldn't rather use file iteration for that?
-- 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