On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:15:10 -0400, David Abrahams wrote: I am currently using Jesse's multimethods in a project of mine, and I should state up front they work very well from my own usage of them. I've also been helping him getting them to compile properly on Linux/GCC (3.3.x and 3.4.x).
How does this stack up against http://tinyurl.com/5qxky? I did not know about this before using Jesse's multimethods - though I have to agree with Jesse, that requiring the end-user to implement some function or another is not appealing. But then, I looked at the above URL, and found it difficult to follow, mainly because the example is mixed in with the rest of the code, making it very difficult to follow, or use in a generic way without going through it with a fine tooth comb to decipher it.
As for a speed comparison, etc. I cannot say, however Jesse's implementation is quite fast enough for my needs. Jesse probably needs to do some more work to allow more than two arguments to the functions used in his multimethods, and to allow it to skip the lookup code for parameters that are rigidly defined (ie. non-polymorphic), however, from an end-users point of view, his code IS quite easy to implement and use. I would love to see Jesse's code make it into boost - though, I would also like to see a version of the multimethods implementation in the URL you pasted that is not inter-mingled with a specific example (ie. the implementation of the feature, and the example in separate files) as well, especially if the requirement for implementing a specific function can be bypassed. This kind of functionality greatly interests me :) -- PreZ Founder The Neuromancy Society http://www.neuromancy.net