Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-02 13:19:54
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Domagoj Saric
<domagoj.saric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> There is none of that here. Imaging writing optional from scratch, at one
> point you would have to decide the same thing, when to mark the optional as
> empty - before or after calling the destructor. Either way you choose won't
> make a difference (semantic or performance wise) for correct code. Incorrect
> code will crash less. Isn't that a good thing (considering there is no
> actual handling of incorrect code)?
Isn't this about the destructor of optional? Marking it as empty seems
unneeded there.
Olaf