[fusion] Definition for FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE
The documentation for fusion implies that FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE is defined whenever a fusion header is included. is this so ? Testing this out under Wave suggests it is not so. What fusion header needs to be included in order to bring in the definition for FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE ?
On 30/06/2014 09:26 a.m., Edward Diener wrote:
The documentation for fusion implies that FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE is defined whenever a fusion header is included.
It doesn't, it simply reserves the option for any header to define it or include a header that does. This is the general case for max sizes, and allows fusion to do things as implementing a container in terms of a different one.
What fusion header needs to be included in order to bring in the definition for FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE ?
As far as I can tell, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` is only defined if you
include
On 6/30/2014 11:15 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 30/06/2014 09:26 a.m., Edward Diener wrote:
The documentation for fusion implies that FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE is defined whenever a fusion header is included.
It doesn't, it simply reserves the option for any header to define it or include a header that does. This is the general case for max sizes, and allows fusion to do things as implementing a container in terms of a different one.
What fusion header needs to be included in order to bring in the definition for FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE ?
As far as I can tell, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` is only defined if you include
and the implementation is non-variadic.
What do you mean by 'and the implementation is non-variadic' ?
On 30/06/2014 12:40 p.m., Edward Diener wrote:
On 6/30/2014 11:15 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 30/06/2014 09:26 a.m., Edward Diener wrote:
The documentation for fusion implies that FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE is defined whenever a fusion header is included.
It doesn't, it simply reserves the option for any header to define it or include a header that does. This is the general case for max sizes, and allows fusion to do things as implementing a container in terms of a different one.
What fusion header needs to be included in order to bring in the definition for FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE ?
As far as I can tell, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` is only defined if you include
and the implementation is non-variadic. What do you mean by 'and the implementation is non-variadic' ?
If the compiler has enough C++11 support, you'll get a variadic
implementation:
template
On 6/30/14, 11:44 PM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 30/06/2014 12:40 p.m., Edward Diener wrote:
On 6/30/2014 11:15 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 30/06/2014 09:26 a.m., Edward Diener wrote:
The documentation for fusion implies that FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE is defined whenever a fusion header is included.
It doesn't, it simply reserves the option for any header to define it or include a header that does. This is the general case for max sizes, and allows fusion to do things as implementing a container in terms of a different one.
What fusion header needs to be included in order to bring in the definition for FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE ?
As far as I can tell, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` is only defined if you include
and the implementation is non-variadic. What do you mean by 'and the implementation is non-variadic' ?
If the compiler has enough C++11 support, you'll get a variadic implementation:
template
struct map; For such implementation, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` makes no sense as there is no hard limit.
Yes, that is correct. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.ciere.com http://boost-spirit.com http://www.cycfi.com/
On 6/30/2014 4:37 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
On 6/30/14, 11:44 PM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 30/06/2014 12:40 p.m., Edward Diener wrote:
On 6/30/2014 11:15 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 30/06/2014 09:26 a.m., Edward Diener wrote:
The documentation for fusion implies that FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE is defined whenever a fusion header is included.
It doesn't, it simply reserves the option for any header to define it or include a header that does. This is the general case for max sizes, and allows fusion to do things as implementing a container in terms of a different one.
What fusion header needs to be included in order to bring in the definition for FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE ?
As far as I can tell, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` is only defined if you include
and the implementation is non-variadic. What do you mean by 'and the implementation is non-variadic' ?
If the compiler has enough C++11 support, you'll get a variadic implementation:
template
struct map; For such implementation, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` makes no sense as there is no hard limit.
Yes, that is correct.
So if the compiler has variadic template support 'FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE' is not defined ? Which config macro is being checked ? If this is so then it should be documented, especially as other libraries might be using the macro and assume it is defined to a default value. In particular I see that Boost MSM uses the macro in the expansion to its 'BOOST_MSM_EUML_EVENT_WITH_ATTRIBUTES' macro. I had been trying to trace a failure in expanding this macro when compiling with VC++ 12 in the ;develop' branch and it is because it relies on 'FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE' always being defined.
On 6/30/2014 4:37 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
On 6/30/14, 11:44 PM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 30/06/2014 12:40 p.m., Edward Diener wrote:
On 6/30/2014 11:15 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 30/06/2014 09:26 a.m., Edward Diener wrote:
The documentation for fusion implies that FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE is defined whenever a fusion header is included.
It doesn't, it simply reserves the option for any header to define it or include a header that does. This is the general case for max sizes, and allows fusion to do things as implementing a container in terms of a different one.
What fusion header needs to be included in order to bring in the definition for FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE ?
As far as I can tell, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` is only defined if you include
and the implementation is non-variadic. What do you mean by 'and the implementation is non-variadic' ?
If the compiler has enough C++11 support, you'll get a variadic implementation:
template
struct map; For such implementation, `FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE` makes no sense as there is no hard limit.
Yes, that is correct.
I created a pull request for msm to fix the problem there when fusion uses variadic maps and msm attempts to use FUSION_MAX_MAP_SIZE. But it would still be nice if fusion documented this situation.
participants (3)
-
Agustín K-ballo Bergé -
Edward Diener -
Joel de Guzman