On 9/22/06, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
"Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/22/06, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
[snipped]
Using Boost.Parameter is not the same sort of thing; it comes with Boost and is transparent to build/configuration issues. I'm not saying what you're suggesting is a bad idea; I just don't see what great advantage it offers.
Faster compile time? Boost.Parameter uses a great deal of metaprogramming, and I used a little here in a project of mine. It really makes the interface better, but the compile times grow a lot.
Really? By how much? and on what compiler? I would very much appreciate seeing numbers.
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? 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+
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida