[proto-implementation]why proto::arg##N vs. mpl::vector##N
Hi, Eric. Could you tell me why isn't mpl::vector##N reused instead of proto::arg##N, which, AFAICT, is almost the same? TIA. -regards, Larry
Larry Evans wrote:
Hi, Eric.
Could you tell me why isn't mpl::vector##N reused instead of proto::arg##N, which, AFAICT, is almost the same?
Because compile times improved by ~10% when I made the switch. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On 4/18/07, Eric Niebler <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Larry Evans wrote:
Hi, Eric.
Could you tell me why isn't mpl::vector##N reused instead of proto::arg##N, which, AFAICT, is almost the same?
Because compile times improved by ~10% when I made the switch.
Were those changes something MPL could use without breaking existing code? If so, would you see benefit to reusing mpl::vector##N? --Michael Fawcett
participants (3)
-
Eric Niebler -
Larry Evans -
Michael Fawcett