Re: Fusion-ifying proto parse trees

Eric Niebler wrote:
> Every time you increment a joint view iterator, you're checking to see 
> if you've reached the end of the first sequence, so you know when to 
> start the second. And if Iterator::first_type is itself a joint view 
> iterator, it *also* must check to see if it's at the end of *its* first 
> sequence to know if it should start its second. And so on. If you do a 
> bunch of push_backs and end up with a joint_view of a joint_view of a 
> joint_view, iterating it will be far from trivial. This sort of 
> flattening-on-the-fly is *exactly* the problem that non-segmented proto 
> has, and is the problem that segmented iterators solve.

Ok, after great self-deliberation, I think you are right! :)
Ok, let's put your hypothesis to test. Can we try your
Zero-copy expression template construction idea with the
current tests that you have? (i.e. seq<> holding its left
and right children by reference).

Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net



-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642