From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-23 09:37:01
"Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On 9/22/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Are you using the latest Boost.Parameter macros to enable your
>> functions, or are you making lots of use of the old idioms?
>> Extensive use of binding<>, especially, is likely to make it expensive
>> at compile-time.
> Oh, there were changes?
> No, no, I dont think I was using any macros.
> But I was using only named templated parameters. I really dont know
> how it compares.
>> > IMO, they are worth, but I doubt everybody would agree.
>> Let's have some numbers; if they are very bad I'll be convinced (but
>> also highly motivated to optimize the library).
> I dont have hard data. But a three classes library, using only named
> template parameters (four each) and instantiated three times was
> taking roughly 30 seconds to compile. VC7.1 on a AMD 64 X2 3800+
That means nothing until we know how much of that time was due to the
use of the parameter 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