Re: [boost] New Library Proposal: dual_state

From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-16 09:36:01

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Calum Grant" <calum_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>In the absence of Boost, I would probably use a std::auto_ptr to
>>store an optional field, which is, um, a smart pointer.  I realize
>>that Optional is implemented slightly differently.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't characterize it as a "slight" difference.
> 
I hate extra dynamic memory allocation even more than I hate extra 
copies, because the former cannot be optimized out and usually takes 
more time than 10 extra copies. Well, pool allocators help a lot 
sometimes, but it's an optimization technology.

I like Boost.Optional because it offers a good way to deal with 
optonality without any extra pointers, memory allocations, special 
"NULL" values or construction or copy operations . I think it's way 
different from the concept of smart pointers.

Andrey