Cory Nelson wrote:
On 9/27/07, Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga@gmail.com> wrote:
P.S.: If users prefer the old syntax, we can go back again to the old way. Just be polite ;-)
How does this affect compile time? Considering these things will probably only be typed once anyway for a typedef, and that most users will only care about a few common args, is an increase in compile time worth it?
That's something I expect users to judge. The new version also has some helper metafunctions that reduce compilation times and symbol length: http://igaztanaga.drivehq.com/intrusive/intrusive/obtaining_same_type_reduci...
I'm straddling the line of calling this "overkill in the name of cleverness", but I will have to try it out and see how it runs.
When the interface change was discussed there was no objection except my worries about compilation times/symbol length. I've spent a lot of time trying to minimize compilation times with the new approach but obviously, they are higher than before. I repeat: if users prefer the old syntax, I'm open to rescue the old syntax adding the features added in the last version. Even if I preferred the old way because of compilation times I appreciate the new syntax. Boost.Intrusive users will make the final choice, so I expect your comments and suggestions. Regards, Ion