Subject: Re: [boost] [cpo-proposal] presentation of the idea
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-19 09:12:40
On 19-08-2013 14:54, Larry Evans wrote:
> On 08/19/13 06:59, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> That sounds like the basic idea. Alignment may not be needed if we
>> assume some kind of maximal alignment. Sizeof may not be needed either
>> if the syntax for adding objects is
>> cont.push_back<Derived>( x, y );
> Using a templated push_back, IIUC, would require some sort of
> container, such as std::vector<char> cont, which contains contigous
> storage, and the push_back should find the next location, i_aligned,
> in std::vector<char> which is at alignment, alignof(Derived).
> and would then push_back i_aligned chars, then further push_back
> sizeof(Derived) char's, the new inplace at cont.begin()+i_aligned.
> Does that make sense?
Yes. And I think that very often i_aligned would be zero due to the
internal padding in classes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk