Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [pool2] Requests for comment
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-16 08:52:40

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> Currently, my solution is implemented by using a boost::stable_vector<
> boost::optional<T>> which seems efficient (to my surprise).

Sounds basically equivalent to a std::vector<T*> or (better) std::vector<
std::unique_ptr<T> >, no? I would expect these explicit pointer-based
containers to have a marginally smaller memory footprint than
stable_vector< optional<T> >.

- Jeff

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