2008/7/19 Steven Watanabe
AMDG
Joel FALCOU wrote:
I just read the parts about the lazyness of fusion transformation. It indeed escpaed me for a few seconds. So basically the fusion transform are more suited for the runtime aprt of the code rather than the compile-time one ?
Right, fusion::transform is appropriate for mixed compile-time/run-time calculations. MPL is more appropriate for purely compile time constructs.
Maybe this could be stated more clearly in the docs? The last part of fusion introduction section says: "For example, there are times when it is convenient to work solely on MPL using pure MPL sequences, then, convert them to Fusion sequences as a final step before actual instantiation of real runtime objects with data" This little line got stuck into my head, and at least in my experience using mpl algorithms&sequences is not only more convenient but also required most of the time, prior to instantiate any fusion sequence to do the runtime part. Adding something like: ! 'Choose MPL over fusion when doing pure type calculations. Once the static type calculation is finished, you can instantiate a fusion sequence (link to result_of::as_vector<S>') for the runtime part.' My 2 c.., / Christian Holmquist
In Christ, Steven Watanabe
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users