Re: [boost] [review] Review of PolyCollection starts today (May 3rd)

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