From: Fernando Cacciola \(Home\) (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-24 16:57:13
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:31 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: partial<> proposal
> Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> >> Given the fact optional<>::m_storage is aligned like a bool...:
> > It is not aligned like a bool...
> Well it depends on the platform but if sizeof(bool) == sizeof(int) on
Were does this 'int' comes from?
> m_storage will be aligned to the next word boundary i.e. aligned like an
Anyway, you just said that it depends on the platform, so I wouldn't say
that m_storage *is*
aligned like bool, at most, it could be.
> >> - Maybe aligned_storage<> should always destruct its object. It
> >> would be the user's responsability to construct the object before
> >> its destruction, otherwise the result would be undefined.
> > Why would this be useful?
> I don't know, it is just another alternative that I personally prefer.
Why do you prefer this?
> >> - Maybe we could create 2 separate type lists if optional<> is used
> >> many times in the same object, gathering m_initialized types and
> >> m_storage in separate lists:
> > What for ?
> I think bool arrays use bitfields
Which bool arrays?
bool x[..] ;
maybe, but are less efficient in that case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk