i've been looking at the fusion library for a few days now, and i feel like i'm missing something (or just trying to make this fit for a use-case it's simply not suited for). i'm looking as using it for compile-time introspection for, let's say, serialization. one thing i was curious about was whether i can statically map each of my persistent types to a string (which could be used as the name of an xml element/attribute). i quickly determined that a map (of fusion-pairs) with more than just a few elements quickly overwhelms the compiler (msvc 7.1; raising the limit of 20 to ~50 just makes the compiler barf). any thoughts on this? fusion provides what appears to be a lot of infrastructure, but i can't seem to take advantage of most of it ('out of the box', anyway). the best i've come up with so far is to create a for_each_it algorithm which, instead of calling back the visitor function with the value, calls it back with the corresponding iterator instead. this seems to work ok, but it appears i'd need to hand-write each algorithm (as well as each sequence), and i don't think that's how it was intended to be used. ;-) any thoughts? am i just barking up the wrong tree? what kinds of applications/use-cases were in mind when fusion was designed? most things i've thought of would (i'd guess) be impractical with today's compilers. i think there's some connection with fusion and spirit... how does spirit avoid the compiler limits i seem to run into? thanks! --craig __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi! I am not aware of fusion, but you can increase compiler's heap by using the /Zm MSVC option. Please read in MSDN about it. I was able to solve my problems by increasing it (static maps with around 150 Types). Good Luck, Ovanes Markarian On Mon, December 11, 2006 11:01, craigp wrote:
i've been looking at the fusion library for a few days now, and i feel like i'm missing something (or just trying to make this fit for a use-case it's simply not suited for). i'm looking as using it for compile-time introspection for, let's say, serialization. one thing i was curious about was whether i can statically map each of my persistent types to a string (which could be used as the name of an xml element/attribute). i quickly determined that a map (of fusion-pairs) with more than just a few elements quickly overwhelms the compiler (msvc 7.1; raising the limit of 20 to ~50 just makes the compiler barf).
any thoughts on this? fusion provides what appears to be a lot of infrastructure, but i can't seem to take advantage of most of it ('out of the box', anyway). the best i've come up with so far is to create a for_each_it algorithm which, instead of calling back the visitor function with the value, calls it back with the corresponding iterator instead. this seems to work ok, but it appears i'd need to hand-write each algorithm (as well as each sequence), and i don't think that's how it was intended to be used. ;-)
any thoughts? am i just barking up the wrong tree? what kinds of applications/use-cases were in mind when fusion was designed? most things i've thought of would (i'd guess) be impractical with today's compilers. i think there's some connection with fusion and spirit... how does spirit avoid the compiler limits i seem to run into?
thanks! --craig
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
craigp wrote: Hi craigp,
i've been looking at the fusion library for a few days now, and i feel like i'm missing something (or just trying to make this fit for a use-case it's simply not suited for). i'm looking as using it for compile-time introspection for, let's say, serialization. one thing i was curious about was whether i can statically map each of my persistent types to a string (which could be used as the name of an xml element/attribute). i quickly determined that a map (of fusion-pairs) with more than just a few elements quickly overwhelms the compiler (msvc 7.1; raising the limit of 20 to ~50 just makes the compiler barf).
You should send me a cpp file that exhibits the problem.
any thoughts on this? fusion provides what appears to be a lot of infrastructure, but i can't seem to take advantage of most of it ('out of the box', anyway). the best i've come up with so far is to create a for_each_it algorithm which, instead of calling back the visitor function with the value, calls it back with the corresponding iterator instead. this seems to work ok, but it appears i'd need to hand-write each algorithm (as well as each sequence), and i don't think that's how it was intended to be used. ;-)
Did you update VC7.1 to SP1 (http://tinyurl.com/kb3gy)? It makes 7.1 so much more useful. Also, have you considered 8.0?
any thoughts? am i just barking up the wrong tree? what kinds of applications/use-cases were in mind when fusion was designed? most things i've thought of would (i'd guess) be impractical with today's compilers. i think there's some connection with fusion and spirit... how does spirit avoid the compiler limits i seem to run into?
I'm not sure. Perhaps I be of more help if I see some code (as minimal as you can). Spirit2 (currently in development) uses Fusion alright. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
participants (4)
-
craigp -
Joel de Guzman -
Ovanes Markarian