From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-07 09:25:08
Sascha Krissler wrote:
> Fernando wrote:
>>> But when i store values where the type has an
>>> inline NaT value (for example NULL pointers) i cannot and need not
>>> use optional.
>> Can you explain why you cannot use optional<>?
>> I definitely see that you don't need it, but for the sake of
>> genericity I just wouldn't mind the fact that some types do have an
>> identifiable null value and use optional<> all along.
> Well i could use it but i do not want to.
> The space complexity is linear as i have to
> store it for every entry and a perfect hash could grow alot even for
> a small number of entries.
So your problem boils down to sizeof(optional<T>)=sizeof(T)+sizeof(bool)?
I'm not sure I like your proposal from a semantic POV, so it might help if
you could give more detail that just "optional is bigger than I want".
Can you show me a _concrete_ example for the iniline NaT case? Along with an
example of a non inline case?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk