On Saturday, 21 May 2016 at 17:34:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Friday, 20 May 2016 at 19:37:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Was talking to Walter on the phone and he just had one of
those great ideas: encode in the function mangle that it
returns "auto". I thought that was fantastic. Would that work?
-- Andrei
Equivalent to not mangling return type at all. But this leaves
you with 2^^n growth, still exponential. Also is there any
evidence that compression is faster than hashing?
Would it be practical to use type-erasure in the middle of a call
chain? It would cut 2^^n right at the knees at the possibly
negligible runtime cost.
It would impose a burden on the client (as I don't think a
compiler should do it on its own - or even if it could), but if
it's really Pareto distributed then it shouldn't be that
difficult to find the hot spots.
