Quoting [John Shalf] (Nov 03 2005):
It is not really much more readable than 4a1. Therefore, I'm uncertain if it is worth fragmenting our approach to bindings in different languages when there is not a clear benefit in terms of readability or implementation complexity.
I think that 4a2/4a3 actually allow nicer implementations, as it allows to have the different async parts somewhat separate from the sync parts. We think its nicer :-)
4a3 the only implementation in a C++ like manner I can think of, which provides: - an interface which conforms to modern C++ concepts pushed by Boost et.al. - it avoids not needed overhead if some of the features are not needed/used (this gets optimised away by any decent C++ compiler)
Well, if the compiler can actually take advantage of that syntactical convention to apply more efficient optimizations, then that is a clear advantage to that approach (whether or not I find the syntax obscure).
_S_AGA. If it is obscure to you or others, its not a good choice. Performance is a second order issue. However, as I said before, I kind of like the template thing :-) And, Hartmut, forgive me for calling it cute... ;-) Cheers, Andre. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andre Merzky | phon: +31 - 20 - 598 - 7759 | | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) | fax : +31 - 20 - 598 - 7653 | | Dept. of Computer Science | mail: merzky@cs.vu.nl | | De Boelelaan 1083a | www: http://www.merzky.net | | 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+