Hi!
//sorry for my late bench mark results; I had a very unfortunate turn of
events in the past few hours. REALLY REALLY SORRY!!!!
#include <variant>!!
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
#include <ctime>
#include <iomanip>
struct A { inline int get(){return 1;} };
struct B { inline int get(){return 2;} };
struct C { inline int get(){return 3;} };

struct data_accessed_through_visit {
    static std::variant<A, B, C> obj;
    int operator()(int) {
        int a1;
        std::visit([&a1](auto&& arg) { a1= arg.get(); }, obj);
        return a1;
    }
};

std::variant<A, B, C> data_accessed_through_visit::obj = C{};
int a_val = 1, b_val = 2, c_val = 10;
int user_index = 0;

struct data_ternary {
    int operator()(int index) {
        return (index == 0) ? a_val : (index == 1) ? b_val : (index == 2) ?
c_val : -1;
    }
};

struct data_switched {
    int operator()(int index) {
        switch(index) {
            case 0: return a_val;
            case 1: return b_val;
            case 2: return c_val;
            default: return -1;
        }
    }
};





volatile int x = 0;
constexpr uint64_t loop_count=100000;
static void measure_switch() {
    data_switched obj;
    for (int i=0; i++<loop_count;) {
        x = obj(user_index);
    }
}

static void measure_visit() {
    data_accessed_through_visit obj;
    for (int i=0; i++<loop_count;) {
        x = obj(user_index);
    }
}

static void measure_ternary() {
    data_ternary obj;
    for (int i=0; i++<loop_count;) {
        x = obj(user_index);
    }
}

template<typename func_t>
void call_func(func_t callable_obj, int arg){
    const auto start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
    callable_obj();
    const auto end = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();

    std::cout<<
    std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::nanoseconds>(end -
start).count()
    <<std::endl;

}

int main(){
    std::cout << "Enter index (0 for A, 1 for B, 2 for C): ";
    if (!(std::cin >> user_index)) std::cerr<<"error!";
    if (user_index == 0) data_accessed_through_visit::obj = A{};
    else if (user_index == 1) data_accessed_through_visit::obj = B{};
    else if (user_index == 2) data_accessed_through_visit::obj = C{};
    std::cout<<"time taken for switch statements:";
    measure_switch();
    std::cout<<"time taken for visit:";
    measure_visit();
    std::cout<<"time taken for ternary:";

    measure_ternary();
    return 0;

}
/*
results:
Time (ns) for switch: 442900
Time (ns) for visit: 3682600
Time (ns) for ternary: 248300
Told you!!!
thank you for all of you're feedbacks!!!
*/
regards, Muneem


On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 8:26 AM Muneem <itfllow123_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The benchmarking tools that you (Breno Guimarães )
> suggested didn't work because they do compile time optimizations on the
> indexing itself (if the index can be determined at compile time), and when
> I tried to make them read the index, it didn't work as expected, hence it
> will take some time for me to write my own benchmarking code..
> To the response I got from a very senior person, I wanna say that even
> though this idea might not be within the logical framework of C++, I would
> still push for it until there is a mathematical proof to specify otherwise.
> I hope this isnt disrespect. Sorry for the delay on benchmarks too, guys; I
> was busy eating breakfast.
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 8:24 AM Muneem <itfllow123_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Before I add some code, I wanna specify that I know references are the
>> same as pointers,but compilers can (in theory optimize them better because
>> they are like constant pointers).
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 6:35 AM Breno Guimarães <brenorg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Try adding actual code showing the problem and how it looks like with
>>> the different options you claim de be not sufficient and how the code would
>>> look like with your solutions.
>>>
>>> There are many wrong assumptions on how things work today. I honestly
>>> cannot understand what you are actually proposing.
>>>
>>> Em qua., 1 de abr. de 2026, 20:37, Muneem via Std-Proposals <
>>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> escreveu:
>>>
>>>> This is the updated proposal
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 1:45 AM Muneem <itfllow123_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I will draft a format proposal that outline all the problems (a
>>>>> whole class of problems), cite all the possible solutions, and then cite
>>>>> bjarne Stroustrup quotes from his old 2013 book to back my philosophy up.
>>>>> Give me some time and thank you for your feedback ❤️❤️
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Muneem
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2026, 1:15 am Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals, <
>>>>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2026 10:52:08 Pacific Daylight Time Muneem via
>>>>>> Std-
>>>>>> Proposals wrote:
>>>>>> > Okay, I won't make the JIT part in my proposal, but just so I know,
>>>>>> you do
>>>>>> > support me if I dont? Like you will vouch for me and help me in my
>>>>>> actual
>>>>>> > formal proposal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't understood the problem yet. You need to start the proposal
>>>>>> with the
>>>>>> problems (plural) that need solving, preferably with multiple
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> alternatives and showing why you think your solution is best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
>>>>>> Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>>>>>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>>>>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>>>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>>>
>>>