From: Jody Hagins (jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-15 10:37:32
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:35:31 -0500
"Joe Gottman" <jgottman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I just discovered that optional<T> is not safe under
> Consider the following code fragment:
> boost::optional<long> x(1); //At this point x is initialized and
> *x == 1 x = x; //x should be unchanged, but instead x is now
> Optional's assignment operator looks like
> optional& operator= ( optional const& rhs )
> this->assign( rhs ) ;
> return *this ;
> and assign is defined by
> void assign ( argument_type val )
> Thus, if (this == &rhs) in operator=(), any value held by rhs will be
Actually, there are multiple assignment operators, with different levels
of complexity and "bugginess." It seems to me that implementing the
canonical assignment operator would work fine...
optional & operator=(optional const & rhs)
I know it is has a little more overhead, but I am pretty sure there are
enough copy-ctors to match the assignement signatures that each
assignemnt operator could be implemented in this manner fairly simply.
This actually brings me to a more broad question... with a fairly well
accepted practice for safe implementation of assignment operators, some
boost libs seem to go out of their way to implement something different.
Is this because of perceived performance issues, or something else?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk