Now that we are talking about STL & templates: What about boost?
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
<g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonz...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> On 06/02/2010 03:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>
>>> In the guidelines, I would like to include:
>>> (2) if you define a class template used mostly with pointer type
>>> arguments,
>>> consider specializing for void* (or const void*) and define all
>>> other
>>> pointer specialization in terms of that.
>>
>> I have no idea what you're saying. :-) What do you mean by "define all
>> other pointer specialization in terms of that"? Wouldn't specializing on T*
>> just work?
>
> yes, it would work, but it may duplicate same executable several times
> for those concerned about code size.
>
> Imagine a vector class template
>
> template<typename T> struct Vec; // primary template
>
> // specialize for T=void*
> template<>
> struct Vec<void*> {
> void* get(int i) { .... }
> // ...
> };
>
> // specialize all T* in terms of void*
> template<typename T>
> struct Vec<T*> : private Vec<Void*> {
> typedef Vec<Void*> Impl;
> // define all operations in as forwarding functions to Impl
> T* get(int i) { return static_cast<T*>(Impl::get(i));
> // and so on.
> };
>
> you only have one "ultimate" implementation, all others being simple inline
> fowarding functions. This is for people concerned about code size.
>
--
Emilio Wuerges
LAPS - Laboratorio de Automacao de Projeto de Sistemas
UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
Brasil
