Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> 1. There is "theoretical" limits for the size of MPL sequences. See MPL
docs
> (BOOST_MPL_LIMIT_LIST_SIZE for list)
> 2. You could limit variant support only for lists that does not exceed
your
> own limit BOOST_VARIANT_LIMIT_TYPES.
Not true. There is absolutely no limit
> > case MAX_WITCH:
> >visitor( Typelist[MAX_WITCH](storage) );
> >break;
> > }
> > }
>
> Your pseudo-code is misleading. There is no "MAX_WHICH" available to the
> preprocessor when MPL-sequences are given because there is no theoretical
> upper limit on the siz
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> "Eric Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > If variant is given types as a MPL-sequence (e.g., variant<
mpl::list > T2, ..., TN> instead of variant), then technique you
> > propose will not work. Please prove me incorrect, but I don't think you
> > can.
> > (Not
"Eric Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > > While I do agree O(1) is better than O(N), I would like to point out
> that
> > > it is usable only when the pseudo-variadic template interface is used
> (i.e.,
> > > variant as opposed to
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > While I do agree O(1) is better than O(N), I would like to point out
that
> > it is usable only when the pseudo-variadic template interface is used
(i.e.,
> > variant as opposed to variant).
>
> Why? And to be absolutely clear: what do you mean by "it"?
By "it" I mean
> While I do agree O(1) is better than O(N), I would like to point out that
it
> is usable only when the pseudo-variadic template interface is used (i.e.,
> variant as opposed to variant).
Why? And to be absolutely clear: what do you mean by "it"?
> Also, I am still not convinced that an unrolled
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > > 8. Visitation algorithm
> > > In sketch presented visitation algorithm look like this:
> > >
> > > void foo1( which, visitor )
> > > {
> > > if( n = 1 )
> > >visitor(...)
> > >else
> > > foo2( which, visitor );
> > > }
> > >
> > > void foo2( whic
