Re: [boost] [optional] Making optional more debugger friendly

From: Jeffrey Faust (jefffaust_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-23 08:20:56

Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:

> I'm not against making things debugger-friendly, but not at the cost of
> performance. Also, I find the objections about having different layouts
> valid.

It would only be for a "debug" build--where the extra information would be  
usable, and where the user has made some explicit choice that performance  
is not as important as extra information.  That's the idea behind a  
checked STL implementation, which will assert if it detects something  
invalid.

The issue of different layouts is a problem.  I had not considered that.   
Now that it's been brought up 3 times, I'm thouroughly aware of it ;)

> Other than that, I know that at least GDB and MS debugger can be  
> scripted and that it might be a different approach that is non-intrusive.

I have tried to modify autoexp.dat in the past, but have failed.  I'll  
give it another try before looking for another solution.

Thanks for the feedback,

Jeff Faust