Mathias Gaunard-2 wrote
On 16/03/12 20:50, lcaminiti wrote:
Mathias Gaunard-2 wrote
On 15/03/12 20:21, lcaminiti wrote:
1) I'd propose to never implement BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT using lambdas. There is no advantage for the user in the lambda implementation
What about 1) compile-time speed 2) run-time efficiency
Aren't both of those better with lambdas?
Bases on my LocalFunction benchmarking: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/local_function/doc/html/boost_loc...
I'd expect ScopeExit with lambdas to be only marginally if at all faster than ScopeExit without lambas for both compile and run time. But I must confess that I didn't directly benchmark ScopeExit with and without lambdas so I could be mistaken.
Doesn't the use of C++11 remove all the ugly virtual stuff?
No, the "virtual stuff" is used by LocalFuncttion* to pass local classes as template parameters but it is not required at all by ScopeExit. (*) Note: A static member function and a static_cast were used at the end instead of the "virtual stuff" because faster. On C++11, neither of this trick is needed because local classes can be passed as template parameters but not because of lambdas which are not used by LocalFunction. Thanks, --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-scope-exit-can-MSVC-lambdas-capture... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.