Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Joshua Boyce (raptorfactor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-30 16:15:36
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Simonson, Lucanus J <
lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> From: Dave Abrahams
> >> I don't personally think that the style of programming that optional
> >> is intended for is suitable for high performance/performance critical
> >> situations in the first place.
>
> >Why not? It seems like a great candidate for common compiler
> >optimizations.
>
> To some extent it depends what style of programming optional is intended
> for. What I had in mind was the highly object oriented defensive
> programming style that emphasizes safety often at the expense of
> performance in vogue around the time Java came out.
>
>
But if we can maintain the same level of safety, while at the same time
increasing efficiency, doesn't that benefit everyone?