AMDG Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
I think providing both compile time and runtime accessors is fine. The runtime accessors can be implemented in terms of the compile time ones in the cases where the type doesn't provide indexing (such as a tuple based point.) People wanting better performance with the runtime accessor can specialize it where appropriate.
Cool.
Have you measured the performance when adapting a struct like this: struct Point { int x; int y; };
Yes, when compiled with optimization it is identical to access the struct members directly or through the accessors (and the extra wrapper class from the original design as well.) Please note: if you forget to use the result of your computation, dead code removal leads to a misleading result because the compiler is more successful in removing dead code in the case where there is less to be removed, so take care confirming my result.
Ok. There might be extra optimizations possible when the index is known at compile time as opposed to run time. (I'm not talking about the difference between get<X>(p) and p[X], here, but the difference between when X is known at compile time using templates to avoid code duplication vs. runtime. and using function arguments). This is really a property of the algorithm rather than the point class, though. In Christ, Steven Watanabe