Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-10 17:32:08

On 2/10/2012 2:54 PM, Nevin Liber wrote:
> On 10 February 2012 05:16, Hite, Christopher
> <Christopher.Hite_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>>> b) creating special cases (e.g. for T&) creates special problems in generic code
>> My point exactly.  I'd make it work for completeness but not bother to optimize.
>
> While my main concern is the interface, here are the reasons I'd like
> to see it optimized:
>
> 1.  If the implementation needs to special case references anyway.
> 2.  The optimization is really easy; it probably takes less time to
> implement and test it than any one of us has spent writing any of the
> emails in this chain to discuss it.
> 3.  The question on this particular optimization shows up on the Boost
> mailing lists like clockwork.  The only thing that will stop it is by
> implementing the optimization, and that in itself is doing Boost
> community at large a great service.

Hi People,

As the author of Boost.Optional I wanted to let you know that I am following the 
entire thread (as all other threads about the library) even if I don't join the 
debate.

I concurr with Nevin that at least some of the optimizations presented are 
embarrasingly trivial to even worth any discussion.

OTOH, this is not the only update that the library needs, so be patient.

FYI I'm currently working closely with Andrzej Krzemienski on a std proposal 
which, among other things, involves the long awaited update to the Boost 
implementation.

Best

-- 
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft Consulting, Founder
http://www.scisoft-consulting.com