On 1/10/2011 12:22 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
On 1/9/2011 7:57 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
On 1/10/2011 7:35 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 09/01/2011 17:29, Steven Watanabe wrote:
On 1/9/2011 6:03 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
Writing a variant replacement is actually quite easy, and doing so would greatly reduce your compile times. Variant is old, full of quirks, and doesn't scale well. Why it even requires its MPL input sequence to be Front Extensible (which it doesn't even state in its documentation) is beyond me. This is a very annoying limitation that makes it impractical to use with a large amount of types, since compatibility with joint_view would be very nice in that situation.
Agreed. Perhaps it's time for V2 that does not necessarily have to be fully backward compatible.
Why exactly would we need to break backwards compatibility? Eliminating the Front Extensible requirement shouldn't break anything. I don't know of anything in the interface of variant that would seriously interfere with a better implementation. I know that assignment is a mess, but there's a good reason it works the way it does.
Indeed! :-) Also, the Front Extensible quirk is easy to fix. I have code for it. In fact, I mentioned that Eric Friedman about it at BoostCon. Compile time? I think that too can be improved without having to rewrite again from scratch. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net