Re: [Boost-users] [iterators][range][rangeex] range concatenation

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [iterators][range][rangeex] range concatenation
From: Neil Groves (neil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-06 18:30:23

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Thorsten Ottosen <
thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Dmitry Vinogradov skrev:
>
>  Calling process_range() twice is not a solution in my case. Copying
>> references to a new container is a better way.
>>
>> Regarding efficiency, can you look thru my rough concat() implementation
>> attached to discover any its disadvantages?
>>
>
It is undeniably more elegant than calling algorithms n times as a general
solution. It is possible to improve performance by reordering some of the
boolean expressions and by reducing the use of boost variant.

>
> If the performance is good,this baby should be included in the range
> library asap.
>

I would like to implement a new version of this functionality, since I have
some code I had prototyped previously. I believe that the idea is good, but
the functionality should efficiently support two random access iterators,
and that the performance can be improved by reducing the use of
boost::variant, although I would have to measure the variant approach to be
certain. I can add this to the list of things to do in response to the
Boost.RangeEx review.

>
> -Thorsten
>

Neil