Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reflection customization #175

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

alexkaratarakis
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@alexkaratarakis alexkaratarakis force-pushed the reflection_customization branch from 07a10eb to 5336fe7 Compare December 4, 2024 23:04
Copy link
Contributor

@Bobobalink Bobobalink left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am conflicted on having FIELD_NAMES and for_each_field be the two things that you can customize. They are definitely the "important" ones, but if we have these two then why not also have as_tuple_view?
Then at the point we have as_tuple_view and FIELD_NAMES, should we just always use the default impl of for_each_field? Probably not because the codegen for_each_field will be far more efficient than tuples::for_each_entry, but it feels bad to have 2-3 duplicated sets of the same information...

include/fixed_containers/reflection.hpp Show resolved Hide resolved
test/reflection_test.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@alexkaratarakis alexkaratarakis force-pushed the reflection_customization branch 4 times, most recently from bd32629 to 1919e78 Compare December 5, 2024 21:42
This is useful e.g. in really big structs that can have reflection
info provided by codegen
@alexkaratarakis alexkaratarakis force-pushed the reflection_customization branch from 1919e78 to 36438b2 Compare December 10, 2024 21:44
@alexkaratarakis alexkaratarakis marked this pull request as ready for review December 10, 2024 21:44
@alexkaratarakis alexkaratarakis force-pushed the reflection_customization branch from 29e7181 to a376680 Compare December 10, 2024 23:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants