Larry Evans wrote:
Thanks for your responses, David.
[snips] Well, right now, I only have time to reply to one issue, this issue: flat vs. linear tuples: Whenever I have some more free time (too much to chew), I am writing some docs for fusion. A part of it will be dedicated to a rationale which shall attempt to explain why a flat structure is generally optimal. I did have some tests. The tests were driven 2 years ago when Volodya (I'm CCing him) complained that the mere construction of a cons list based tuples (the original) generated > 10 times code than a flat struct. Ditto to accessing the members. Anyway... that said... I believe the right way to go is to do as STL or MPL did: allow the user to choose the right structure for the job. Quite recently, I've been needing a cons based tuple structure which has certain characteristics that I require. I couldn't reuse fusion's flat structures for that. I am of the opinion now that fusion's tuple should really be called fusion::vector. In addition, other types of fusion sequences should be created. Each with its own properties/tradeoffs. I know this is deviating from the TR1 tuples too much, but I think it's the right way to go. A TR1 tuples interface can simply be added on top of the library, not as a basis of it. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net