Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] layout
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-27 19:32:52
"Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:4AC4EDDE.5070606_at_providere-consulting.com...
>> it also makes life harder for those of us keen to hackery ;) because it
>> makes the address of an optional different from the address of the actual
>> object within the optional...
>>
>
> Um, you shouldn't rely on this anyway. The standard only
> makes guarantees about the addresses of sub-objects for
> POD types.
and, if i'm not mistaken, for class sub-objects that belong to the same "access
section"...although, yes, the point is still moot from a standard-pure POV as
boost::optional<> is free to use base classes for implementation and it in fact
does...
-- "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." Aldous Huxley