Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of PolyCollection starts today (May 3rd)
From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-07 18:20:54

El 06/05/2017 a las 16:49, Edward Diener via Boost escribió:
> The explanation you cite with the link above is a tutorial, not an
> explanation. Furthermore, perhaps for the sake of syntactical brevity,
> you cite an example in which a lambda function returns another lambda
> function !!! This may be exceedingly clever but it can hardly be a
> mainstream explanation of your functionality which most programmers
> would easily understand as how a function collection "works". Your
> examples above are a much better and more mainstream example of how
> the function_collection works, and even the short explanation you have
> given me should have been in the documentation.

Will think about how to make the intro part more accessible along the
lines you suggest.

> It is also hard to understand what the advantage of a poly collection
> of these objects entail over a more normal C++ collection ( vector,
> array etc. ) of std::function<Signature> objects, since the latter
> object type already represents a generalized callable construct in
> C++. Some of your performance tests suggest there is little or no
> advantage, so a discussion of this would have been welcome in the
> documentation.

Performance is actually the *only* reason for using Boost.PolyCollection
as opposed to say
std:.vector<std::function<Signature>>. Perfomance tests are not very
conclusive about insertion
times (VS favors Boost.PolyCollection, GCC and Clang
std:.vector<std::function<>>), but processing
times, which are the crux of the matter, definitely show the point of
the library. Admittedly this
section should be added a comments section where the results are
discussed --otherwise they
might be hard to interpret.

Joaquín M López Muñoz

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at