On 7/2/2012 11:18 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 02/07/2012 19:29, Eric Niebler wrote:
Yeah, it's booo-ring. ;-) Also, it needlessly instantiates O(N) templates. And why write both a function template *and* a class template when the function template alone will do? Now you have to maintain two computations in parallel. I hate writing metafunctions to compute things the compiler already knows. And in less trivial examples, the metafunction wouldn't be so easy to write. BTW, only the implementation of back needs to go in a struct. The user-visible function could fwd to it.
Have you done benchmarks that shows your approach is significantly faster?
No.
Use of a C++11 feature just for the sake of it doesn't seem like such a good idea to me.
<baffle> Have I not given enough good reasons above? Maybe I'll just keep my good ideas to myself next time. :-/
Especially since BOOST_TYPEOF in the return type tends to be quite fragile, so it cannot really be emulated.
True. This is only for C++11 code. That's why the subject says "C++11 useful trick". :-/ -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com