Re: [Boost-users] large variant performance compared (50 elements)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] large variant performance compared (50 elements)
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-09 22:57:20

On 1/10/2011 7:35 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 17:29, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>> AMDG
>>
>> On 1/9/2011 6:03 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>>> Writing a variant replacement is actually quite easy, and doing so
>>> would greatly reduce your compile times.
>>> Variant is old, full of quirks, and doesn't scale well. Why it even
>>> requires its MPL input sequence to be Front Extensible (which it
>>> doesn't even state in its documentation) is beyond me. This is a very
>>> annoying limitation that makes it impractical to use with a large
>>> amount of types, since compatibility with joint_view would be very
>>> nice in that situation.
>>
>> So, why not fix Boost.Variant instead of having
>> everyone roll his own?
>
> Because, as I said, it's full of quirks.
> Writing your own implementation that fits your needs, compiles fast and runs fast is way
> less effort than trying to get fixes into variant.

Agreed. Perhaps it's time for V2 that does not necessarily have to be fully
backward compatible.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net