Andreas Huber <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap@yahoo.com> writes:
David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes: [snip]
I need to modify that sequence internally.
You don't mean that, exactly, since all metadata is immutable.
Right, I mean that I can't use e.g. push_front on some sequences.
If any sequence was allowed (including immutable ones), I would need to copy that sequence into an mpl::list<> first.
Why an mpl::list<>? What's special about that structurue? Why not mpl::vector?
The sequence just needs to support certain operations, e.g. push_front, reverse, etc. So, mpl::vector<> should work too (I never checked).
If you're reversing the sequence, all your arguments about requiring mutability for efficiency reasons are invalid. You might as well do mpl::reverse<user_sequence, back_inserter<vector<> > >
Don't know, I can't think of anything that would keep you from using deque or vector. I guess it would be best to document the exact requirements and make measurements so that I can tell the user which of the standard mpl sequences are best.
Not a bad idea, but I wouldn't go overboard. In this case the first priority should be to lift needless restrictions. The restrictions you're using don't even neccessarily lead to better efficiency. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com