Re: [Boost-users] different member function signatures based on class template arguments

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] different member function signatures based on class template arguments
From: Hicham Mouline (hicham_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-08 10:31:09

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-users-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Joel Falcou
> Sent: 08 April 2009 12:57
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] different member function signatures based on
> class template arguments
> 
> Hicham Mouline a écrit :
> > So I am concerned about
> >         process(xbegin, xend, x, const S& s)   // then access s.d1 and
> s.d2
> > as I measured it is slower than
> >        process(xbegin, xend, x, double d1, double d2)
> >
> How did you performed your benchmark ? Most modern compiler should
> produce similar code for those two interface. Are you sure you pass your
> structure by reference ? How large is your sample measures ?

I tried something along these lines:

http://codepad.org/ieS3W2aO

but it failed to compile...

Shouldn't the enable_if metafct remove the invalid functions from the
overload set?

Regards,