Re: [Algorithms] Complexity of new hardware

[Jon W. <jw...@gm...>]

Will Vale wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:55:20 +1200, Jon Watte <jw...@gm...> wrote:
>   
>> You can actually use some template trickery to hoist the RTTI() /
>> MEMBER() parts into the struct itself.
>>     
>
> I think that's pretty neat, but it only moves, rather than removes the  
> duplication, although I can see that it's easier to verify in one place  
> like that. (I also needed to add an implementation to the cpp file to  
> provide storage for foo::_theInfo to get it to link under VC9.)
>
> It also generates code-to-generate-data rather than data, which was  
> something I was keen to avoid as much as possible. That said, if you  
>   


Sorry, the _theInfo can be wrapped as a static singleton in a static 
inline function, and then it will link with VC as well.

I don't actually generate (much) code to generate data, although I 
suppose the constructors do count. It all gets run at static init AFAICT.

The edit for VC++:

  static _info<T> _theInfo;
  static inline _info<T>  &info() {
    return _theInfo;
  }

turns into:

  static inline _info<T>  &info() {
    static _info<T> _theInfo;
    return _theInfo;
  }

Toggling two lines can make all the difference in the world :-)

(And I suppose I could even use the instance() template that automates 
this pattern)

Sincerely,

jw