Niels Lohmann cb1073469e Keep the descent bookkeeping in one place ...

Copying carried a depth count, a depth limit and a guard of its own, and
the comparison in the follow-up added a second set beside them. Neither
operation needs its own: they are never nested inside one another by the
library - copying a value does not compare one, and comparing two values
does not copy them - and where user code nests them anyway, sharing the
count only ends a descent sooner than it had to.

So there is now one nesting_depth(), one nesting_depth_limit() and one
nesting_depth_guard, which the follow-up uses instead of adding its own.
Inverting the test in copy_structured leaves the too-deep case and the
no-thread-local case as the same code.

The guard takes the count rather than looking it up, because the caller
has looked it up already to test it against the limit, and reaching
thread-local storage twice on the path that is taken almost every time is
worth avoiding.

The switch that copies the value of anything that is not an object or an
array was written twice - once in the copy constructor, once in
copy_shallow - so that adding a value_t meant editing both, and missing
one would have been silent. It is copy_leaf_value now, and inlined: both
callers have already sorted the containers out, and folding that test into
the switch is what keeps a value made mostly of numbers copying as fast as
it did.

Copying canada.json, citm_catalog.json and twitter.json is within 0.6% of
what it was before, measured as a paired ratio over 18 interleaved rounds
against a run-to-run spread of 0.3%.

Signed-off-by: Niels Lohmann <mail@nlohmann.me>

2026-08-21 12:24:30 +02:00

..

nlohmann

Keep the descent bookkeeping in one place

2026-08-21 12:24:30 +02:00