"Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > David Abrahams wrote: > > "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Yes, exactly. Sorry if I wasn't precise enough. > >> > >> The bool type will cancel type_with_alignment<> effects (at least on > >> Intel compatible platforms); i.e. unique alignment of each > >> optional<T> type. > > > > Sounds like you want > > > > type_with_alignment<T>::type storage; > > new ((void*)&storage) T(x, y, z) > > > > Can you really do anything to make this cleaner? I guess: > > > > aligned_storage<T> storage; > > new (storage.bytes) T(x, y, z); > > > > might be a help. What else are you gaining? And how do you destroy > > the T? If not explicitly and you don't have a "constructed" flag, > > you're going to have exception-safety problems. > > Everything seems already defined ;) > > Given the fact optional<>::m_storage is aligned like a bool...: > It is not aligned like a bool...
> - 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? > - 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 ? -- Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
