Re: [boost] Re: Empty base optimization and operators.hpp

From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-02 07:10:42

on 5/2/00 6:54 AM, John Maddock at John_Maddock_at_[hidden] wrote:

> As I see it Alexies versions have a single killer feature: they prevent
> object size bloat due to multiple inheritance, were it not for that, I
> would say stick with the original versions - no question - they're simple
> to implement and IMO easier to use that the inheritance based approach.  As
> for what the best approach given current compiler limitations is, I don't
> know, sorry.  Whatever, if you settle on a version I'll produce a Builder 5
> hacked version.

I guess I didn't make the arguments clearly enough. The choices are between
what Alexy supplied and something similar but slightly simpler. The simpler
version would still allow the size benefits but would not be backwards
compatible. Writing addable<T, U> would make T addable to itself and also
into a derived class of U in the simpler case. To get the results of the old
"addable<T, U>" you'd need to write "addable2<T, U>".

You'd need to change your code to get the size benefits in either case.

-Dave

P.S. I guess my vote is to accept Alexy's code as is. We should add lots of
supporting documentation: in the html file, for usage, and in the code, for
instructional purposes.