AMDG
Wolfram Brenig wrote:
----------------------- Now, my question is, if such nested construction of functors at the call site, which is suggested also in the 'Bind Summary' in Karlsson's book, will actually lead to code which has no relevant performance loss as compared to 'old-style' for-loops? <snip> bind(multiplies<double>(),bind(sin,_1),bind(sin,_1)), bind(multiplies<double>(),bind(cos,_1),bind(cos,_1))
These calls to sin and cos are through function pointers.
In Christ, Steven Watanabe
Hi, Even if boost::bind does so in this expression, what should I conclude from that in the context of my question? Does this already make up for the performance difference? Can you suggest a different nested bind at the call site for this example which performs similar to old-style for-loops (and please: by code not by casuistry) Cheers, wb