"Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/22/06, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Are you using the latest Boost.Parameter macros to enable your functions, or are you making lots of use of the old idioms? Extensive use of binding<>, especially, is likely to make it expensive at compile-time.
Oh, there were changes?
Lots.
No, no, I dont think I was using any macros. But I was using only named templated parameters. I really dont know how it compares.
IMO, they are worth, but I doubt everybody would agree.
Let's have some numbers; if they are very bad I'll be convinced (but also highly motivated to optimize the library).
I dont have hard data. But a three classes library, using only named template parameters (four each) and instantiated three times was taking roughly 30 seconds to compile. VC7.1 on a AMD 64 X2 3800+
That means nothing until we know how much of that time was due to the use of the parameter library. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com