Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-02 13:19:54

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Domagoj Saric
<domagoj.saric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> There is none of that here. Imaging writing optional from scratch, at one
> point you would have to decide the same thing, when to mark the optional as
> empty - before or after calling the destructor. Either way you choose won't
> make a difference (semantic or performance wise) for correct code. Incorrect
> code will crash less. Isn't that a good thing (considering there is no
> actual handling of incorrect code)?

Isn't this about the destructor of optional? Marking it as empty seems
unneeded there.


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