----- Original Message ----- From: "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:31 PM Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: partial<> proposal
> Fernando Cacciola wrote: > > [...] > > >> Given the fact optional<>::m_storage is aligned like a bool...: > >> > > It is not aligned like a bool... > > Well it depends on the platform but if sizeof(bool) == sizeof(int) on Intel, ^^^^^^^ Were does this 'int' comes from? > m_storage will be aligned to the next word boundary i.e. aligned like an > integer. > Anyway, you just said that it depends on the platform, so I wouldn't say that m_storage *is* aligned like bool, at most, it could be. > >> - Maybe aligned_storage<> should always destruct its object. It > >> would be the user's responsability to construct the object before > >> its destruction, otherwise the result would be undefined. > >> > > Why would this be useful? > > I don't know, it is just another alternative that I personally prefer. > Why do you prefer this? > >> - Maybe we could create 2 separate type lists if optional<> is used > >> many times in the same object, gathering m_initialized types and > >> m_storage in separate lists: > >> > > What for ? > > I think bool arrays use bitfields > Which bool arrays? bool x[..] ; dont't. std::vector<bool> maybe, but are less efficient in that case. Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost