From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-13 17:03:20
on Wed Aug 13 2008, "Stjepan Rajko" <stipe-AT-asu.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:54 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Testing is a good suggestion, but I don't have the time right now to
>>> do that :-) I'm not necessarily interested in replicating all
>>> Boost.Parameter features. I'm quite happy with the fusion-based
>>> solution as a simple one.
>>
>> Okay, so what are you trying to accomplish?
>>
>
> Being able to have named parameters and not using Boost.Parameter.
Well, then I'm afraid that Boost.Parameter can never help you :-)
>> Well, at the time we redesigned the library, I encouraged Daniel Wallin
>> to look into whether we could gain anything by using fusion, because the
>> fundamental data structure we use is like a fusion map. He said we
>> couldn't gain anything significant, and at the time I took his word for
>> it. The entire code corresponding to fusion::map is contained in
>> boost/parameter/aux_/arg_list.hpp. The rest of the library consists
>> primarily of functionality you're not providing.
>>
>
>>From what you're saying, it could be that our approaches are similar
> but using a different map type. Using the fusion-based approach, I
> can do this:
>
> class named_constructable
> {
> public:
> // a macro could extend the number of parameters if desired
> template<typename FM0, typename FM1>
> named_constructable(const FM0 &a0, const FM1 &a1)
> {
> // this could be done lazily...
> map<field::label, field::size>::type args = a0 & a1;
>
> label = args.at<field::label>();
> size = args.at<field::size>();
> }
> std::string label;
> int size;
> };
>
> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( test_multi_param_construction )
> {
> named_constructable constructed(label_ = "hello", size_ = 1);
> BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(constructed.label, "hello");
> BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(constructed.size, 1);
> }
>
> If our approaches are similar, that would suggest Boost.Parameter
> could do the same.
With Boost.Parameter it would look like:
class named_constructable
{
public:
// a macro could extend the number of parameters if desired
template<typename FM0, typename FM1>
named_constructable(const FM0 &a0, const FM1 &a1)
{
label = (a0,a1)[_label];
size = (a0,a1)[_size];
}
std::string label;
int size;
};
But if you use the recommended method of building constructors,
Boost.Parameter also supports:
named_constructable x0("hello", 1);
named_constructable x0("hello", _size=1);
named_constructable x0(_label="hello", _size=1);
named_constructable x0(_size=1, _label="hello");
and in this case (using deduced parameters), even
named_constructable x0(1, "hello");
>> I'm just saying, if you're going to make comparisons of the two
>> libraries, they should be informed comparisons and not speculation.
>
> Well, I tried to make sure that my speculations were qualified as such
> (and I consider speculation to be a valid component of discussion).
> If my speculations came across as assertions, I apologize.
They didn't, but I did find your presumption that we hadn't already gone
over this ground in designing the library rather... premature.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com