Subject: Re: [boost] Metaprogrammers, all of you!
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-13 01:31:09
On 10/12/2010 7:10 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
> At Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:40:38 -0500,
> Andrew Sutton wrote:
>>> I find it interesting, but also a bit sad, that the thread on
>>> metaprogramming âplumbingâ is very active, while this fundamental
>>> question of abstraction and generic programming has gone unaddressed.
>> ... Says the guy who, quite literally, wrote the book on metaprogramming :)
> The irony is not lost on me. But I fear I've created a monster :(
>> Is it possible to distill a succinct phrasing of question being
>> posed? I think I'm having trouble reading it through the reply
>> markers. I think I get the basic gist, but I'm not sure my
>> understanding is complete enough to generate an opinion. Maybe it
>> would make a nice article for C++Next.
> The question has to do with what kind of abstraction should be used to
> expose element access in segmented structures. This short and very
> readable 1998 paper explains the problem space and offers one
> approach: http://lafstern.org/matt/segmented.pdf
Jumping in the middle here so this may not be relevant.... Here is the
beginning of a discussion on spirit-devel about segmented Fusion
algorithms that sought to apply Matt Austern's formulation to Fusion's
This discussion eventually led to Fusion's current (incomplete,
unmaintained) support for segmented sequences. (Although in Fusion, the
goal is not improved runtime performance, but easier-to-implement
segmented sequences and drastically lower compile-time overhead.)
We found no fundamental problems in Austern's formulation of generic
segmentation, or in our adaptation of it to meet Fusion's needs.
-- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk