Re: abstract unified interface
David Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.langbinding |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes: > 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.. Yeah, but those two can have significantly different costs, when it matters. It won't matter in our case, though ;-) > Anyway, should we give this a go? I think it's worth a try. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ------------------------------------------------------- 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/