From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-21 15:55:14
Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> well as providing a well known optimization technique to avoid dynamic
> allocation when the involved objects are small.
The problem with small object optimization is that you get the same
issue that boost.variant has: it's hard to maintain the never-empty
guarantee in operator=, because the copy constructor of a new value can
throw and thus you lose the old value.
I wonder, by the way, how boost.function solves that issue.
Apart from that, what does optional_poly<T> give that optional< poly<T>
> doesn't, apart from a small save of memory ?
Maybe optional should be specialized, rather, to allow it to be more
efficient for your type.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk