From: Noah Roberts (roberts.noah_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-29 18:50:31
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> AMDG
>
> Matthias Schabel <boost <at> schabel-family.org> writes:
>
>>> Since that time I have made a few changes which make it
>>> trivial to switch to mpl::plus etc. I agree that that
>>> would be a good thing.
>> It would be good, but, ultimately, this is an implementation detail
>> that should have no impact on the library's end users...probably not
>> something that needs to be a top priority...
>
> Aren't users allowed to manipulate dimension lists
> directly?
Exactly. One would expect it to follow conventions. Also see the
static_rational, which I think needs its own review and be added to the
math library.
>
>> I would rather not make the code totally incomprehensible unless
>> there is a very clear and compelling reason to. It takes less than 30
>> seconds for me to recompile all 22 example programs on my machine,
>> which is quite acceptable...
>
> Exactly my conclusion.
I did not time it but I did compare it relative to both my own home
brewed quantity class and to doubles. Our software can take a long time
to compile already and this particular implementation was at least 10x
as slow to compile as doubles. This could have significant impact on
its utility as well; it might be entirely impractical to use in very
large projects that do a lot of computations.