Peder Holt wrote:
What would be very nice (but probably unattainable) was to reduce this into an N process. Any suggestions would be most welcome.
I've no idea how to do that, but I know how to get it to work with a macro like mine. And possibly improve normal use as well (although, I'm not sure about that). You can change foo so that as part of it's return type it returns a value_list containing the encoded types so far, and keeps adding the encoded types to it. Then each iteration you call foo the same number of times (this actually makes things worse, but bear with me...) and change enocode to pick the appropriate value from the value_list. Now, since foo can add more than one value to the value_list at a time, this means you can do more encoding per call to foo. So, it might be possible to reduce the number times you call foo. Also, since foo is called the same number of times every iteration, you can use my iterator macro, which means that the number of calls becomes o(nm), where n is the preset value, and m is the complexity of the type - this can be a real gain for simple types. I've tried adapting your version to do this, I've put the code at: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/calamity/code/typeof_vintage2.zip If you look at typeof.hpp and modifiers.hpp you should get a good idea of what I've done. It's only tested on Visual C++ v6.0, and I expect it will probably require some changes to work on more recent versions. It needs to be cleaned up considerably, it's only really meant as a demonstration of the idea. I haven't really taken advantage of being able to do more encoding per call, that will probably require another rewrite and might not be practicle. So for normal use it's currently worse. But, when using BOOST_TYPEOF_TYPEDEF it does allow you to specify a higher number of calls to foo without loosing out for simpler types (since they only iterate a small number of times). It also generates slightly shorter value_lists, which reduces the number of iterations required. This could possibly be worthwhile? If you've still got it, could I have another look at your original version? I deleted it when I downloaded your new one. It might be possible to use the techniques you used there for this type of implementation. thanks, Daniel