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: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-17 19:43:01

On 10/17/10 7:17 PM, 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.

I'm not sure. We'll need formalized tests to be sure. Perhaps
Thomas knows better.

> 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.

Agreed.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net