From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-24 11:15:46
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I would like to propose partial<> when you wish to postpone an
>> object's construction:
> How is this different from the recently-accepted optional<T> class
It would be great also to have a different version of optional<> not having
the member optional<>::m_initialized. This way you could take advantage of
small alignments (char, short) without rounding it back to a 'bool'
(equivalent to the default machine word I think ~ int).
Philippe A. Bouchard
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk