Hi All, I'm working on ways to make the Boost Interfaces library easier to use. This involves making interface definitions compile faster and making them easier to read. Unfortunately, these are somewhat conflicting goals: really messy-looking interface definitions may compile much faster than simple ones. I'm working on four approaches to interface definitions; I plan to implement them all and then compare them. Right now I'm looking for feedback on number 4: 1. The current IDL, possibly slightly modified, in which an interface definition consists of a sequence of macro invocation 2. A modified IDL in which an interface definition consists of a single invocation; this increases the amount of preprocessor metaprogramming but decreases the amount of template metaprogramming 3. The pseudocode IDL, together with an IDL compiler which translates pseudocode definitions into C++ class definitions requiring virtually no metaprogramming. 4. Hand written interfaces, requiring virtually no metaprogramming. The point of allowing hand-written interfaces is to decrease compile times. There's no question that writing interfaces by handle will be the most difficult of the above four options. Still, writing interfaces by hand has to be reasonably straightforward or no one will ever do it. So here's my question. Consider the interface: interface IBar { void foo(const char*); int foo(int, int); }; Is the following definition of IBar so complex that it would be pointless to offer it as an alternative? template< typename Derived, typename Base, typename Flags > struct ibar_impl { struct type : Base { struct interface_metadata : metadata_base<Derived, Base, Flags> { const char* names = { "foo", "foo" }; typedef mpl::vector< void(const char*), int(int, int) > signatures; }; void foo(const char* name) { return invoker<interface_metadata, 1>::execute(this, name); } int foo(int n, int m) { return invoker<interface_metadata, 2>::execute(this, int, int); } }; }; typedef interface< ibar_impl<_, _, _> > IBar; Best Regards, Jonathan