Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure
From: Julien Nitard (julien.nitard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-14 09:51:08
Hi again,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
[...]
>
>> Moreover, when using polymorphic value types implemented this way, you
>> are still paying for one dynamic allocation and one deletion per copy
>> of the object (this may be implementation–specific). Since those
>> objects are supposed to be copied frequently,
>
> Says who?
Well, if you go all that way to have polymorphism on value types and
you take references to them, I fail to see why you did the effort in
the first place. You actually said:
>>> and => reference semantics (- hard to reason about)
I am probably missing the point, but I am not sure where.
> Of course. And I don't want to avoid shared state completely. I want
> to avoid sharing state all over the place "by default." By the way,
> this affects single-threaded code too. If you haven't heard of
> "defensive copying" in the Java world, look it up.
I'll be doing that, many thanks for the advice.
Julien