Subject: Re: [boost] Phoenix v3 review
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-25 07:59:46
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Joel Falcou <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 25/02/11 13:35, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>> It already behaves like the proto generator functions you described.
>>> Maybe the instantiation of a phoenix::function<F> also add
>>> significantly to compile time and binary size. These were the numbers
>>> I was interested in.
>> Exactly. Phoenix functions are not proto terminals. I agree with
>> Thomas, I'd like to see the numbers first before jumping to a conclusion.
> The problem comes from the inevitable code instanciation of this template
> class when you actually do a lot of function<stuff> evewhere.
> see your std bindings for ex.
Which should still be lighter than proto terminals, let me remind you
that "stuff" is just yet another PFO with templated opertator()
overloads. It really shouldn't matter a lot. I can't run the tests
right now ... I will when returning back home.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk