Douglas Gregor wrote: > On Thursday 17 April 2003 03:50 am, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > IOW, now specifying behaviour for event requires creating a new class, > > with "event_filter" typedef and operator(). You propose to pass lambda, > > immediately on dfs_visitor creation. I think this is indeed convenient. > > I've some concerns about efficiency, but why don't try? > > It's a little worse than just creating the new class with event_filter: you > need to build up a cons-list out of std::pairs containing your visitor > types.
Yep, but that's the easy part of the game, IMO. > The efficiency won't be any worse than using a bind object elsewhere in a > program. The do_on_XXX functions merely augment the visitor list of > dfs_visitor and return a new dfs_visitor object. This precisely what worries me -- bind might not be very efficient. I may be a overly concerned about efficiency at the moment --- recently wrote a graph algorithm in BGL which turned out to be 100 times slower that a simply-coded one :-( Not sure if this is BGL's fault or the problem with the algorithm, though. - Volodya _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost