Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Joshua Boyce (raptorfactor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-30 16:15:36

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Simonson, Lucanus J <
lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> From: Dave Abrahams
> >> I don't personally think that the style of programming that optional
> >> is intended for is suitable for high performance/performance critical
> >> situations in the first place.
> >Why not? It seems like a great candidate for common compiler
> >optimizations.
> To some extent it depends what style of programming optional is intended
> for. What I had in mind was the highly object oriented defensive
> programming style that emphasizes safety often at the expense of
> performance in vogue around the time Java came out.
But if we can maintain the same level of safety, while at the same time
increasing efficiency, doesn't that benefit everyone?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at