Re: [boost] [phoenix] request for a mini-review. (Re: Phoenix as a Boost library)

Subject: Re: [boost] [phoenix] request for a mini-review. (Re: Phoenix as a Boost library)
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-17 16:37:49

At Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:17:08 +0100,
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> 
> On 17/10/2010 06:01, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, that's what we do for 03. Let's call it less-than-perfect forwarding.
> > It's the best we can do. Right now we have a PP constant for that. Mind
> > you,
> > even 3 args is still quite expensive!
> 
> What's expensive? The generation of all these overloads with the
> preprocessor or the actual lookup with that many overloads?
> 
> If it's the former, I don't think that's very relevant. If you want to
> use a tool like Phoenix, you probably should use a PCH version of it.
> 
> As a side note, more and more Boost libraries are making compilation
> very slow, and it would be nice to integrate standardized PCH headers
> as part of the Boost distribution, which would be automatically
> generated at installation time.

Indeed!

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com