Re: Re: abstract unified interface
Daniel Wallin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.langbinding |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
David Abrahams wrote: > Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes: > > >>David Abrahams wrote: >> >>>Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>>Yeah it's kind of nice, but I'm concerned about the amount of additional >>>>virtual calls we'd end up with. I can't tell if this matters that much, >>>>but at least I think it should be considered. >>> >>>Done ;-) >>>Seriously, remember that your interpreter's overhead swamps small >>>C++ >>>function calls. We can afford to take quite a few liberties. >> >>That might be true.. Not all interpreters are equally slow though. :) > > > Sure. There are lots of ways to speed up interpretation of policies, > though. People who care about cycles can write a bytecode > compiler/interpreter, for example. Really? I would have thought the cost is kind of fixed; one virtual function call or a hardwired switch on the policy type.. Anyway, should we give this a go? -- Daniel Wallin ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/