Boost mailing page: Re: [boost] Minimizing Dependencies within Generic Classes for Faster and Smaller Programs

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] Minimizing Dependencies within Generic Classes for Faster and Smaller Programs
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-11 18:27:00

Next message: Daniel James: "Re: [boost] [inspect] added new check for C-style assert macro (was: [property_tree][showstopper][1.45] missing include in string_path.hpp)"
Previous message: Eric Niebler: "[boost] [inspect] added new check for C-style assert macro (was: [property_tree][showstopper][1.45] missing include in string_path.hpp)"
In reply to: Dean Michael Berris: "Re: [boost] Minimizing Dependencies within Generic Classes for Faster and Smaller Programs"
Next in thread: Felipe Magno de Almeida: "Re: [boost] Minimizing Dependencies within Generic Classes for Faster and Smaller Programs"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Minimizing Dependencies within Generic Classes for Faster and Smaller Programs

> 2010/11/12 Ion GaztaÃ±aga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]>:
>> On 10/11/2010 17:56, vicente.botet wrote:
>>>
>>> I was wondering if Boost should not take this as a guideline and
>>> whether the Boost authors would check his libraries to see if this
>>> technique could improve its performances, in particular for all the
>>> container and the the forthcomming Boost.Container libraries.
>>
>
> Interesting paper, thanks for sharing Vicente. I already use this
> technique in cpp-netlib, I just didn't know there was a general term
> for it. :D

I use it also though not systematicaly, but I didn't know that there were cases were this technique could improve the performances so significantly.

Vicente

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view