From: 0xcdcdcdcd@gmx.at   
      
   On 27.07.2013 09:47, Öö Tiib wrote:   
   > On Friday, 26 July 2013 20:15:21 UTC+3, Mathias Gaunard  wrote:   
   >>> I am big fan of boost but consider it as a set of useful libraries not   
   >>> as holy path to follow.   
   >>   
   >> Only "under average users" would consider boost to   
   >> be a holy path to follow.   
   >   
   > Yes that I tried to say. It is often experimenting code. For example   
   > that BOOST_FOREACH. It does perform worse than usual for loop. That   
   > shows it can't be done and that resulted with range based for loop   
   > syntax introduced into language.   
   >   
      
   I googled it. As far as I can understand, the speed difference between a   
   normal for loop and it's BOOST_FOREACH equivalent is measurable in   
   isolation, but from the numbers I see I would be rather surprised if it   
   would be really noticeable in any real application.   
      
   I use BOOST_FOREACH whenever. And in those two cases I ever had to   
   optimize a for-loop at a hot-spot, the one wasn't even a BOOST_FOREACH   
   loop, the naive "classic" for-loop was not optimal either and I had to   
   fiddle around with the conditions there too to make it perform optimally.   
      
   cheers,   
   Martin   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)