on Fri Aug 10 2007, David Abrahams <dave-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:
That's why I still prefer a more conservative approach:
my_class< policy_packer<policy_b<param_b>, policy_a<param_a> >::type >
so that my_class is the same type for the same policy combination. Call me conservative but I still prefer seeing a definition like this:
Bleah, if you don't mind my saying so :-)
my_class<policy_b<param_b>, policy_a<param_a> >::normalized_type
would be nicer.
My point being that people who weren't worried about this issue could still just use my_class<policy_b<param_b>, policy_a<param_a> > But that said, this is all premature optimization at a real cost to expressivity. Build the cleanest, nicest interface you can give your users, and if you're worried about performance, then optimize. You're not looking at some big-O difference that should influence the design up front. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com