Martin Sebor wrote: >Martin Sebor wrote: >> Travis Vitek wrote: >[...] >>>>> The draft shows a 'typical implementation' of >aligned_storage that >>>>> uses the new alignas keyword, >>>>> but alignas doesn't appear to be supported >>>>> anywhere. >>>> That's probably because they didn't want to favor any existing >>>> implementation over others. >>> >>> I don't see this as a problem with the standard not wanting >to favor one >>> implementation over another, it is a problem because no current >>> implementation supports the new keyword. >> >> That might have been the point: use a made up keyword that doesn't >> exist on any implementation so as not to suggest that one should >> be preferred over the others. (Just guessing.) > >But I'm guessing wrong, of course. Again, I missed an important >detail in your post: that alignas is a new C++ keyword (I didn't >know that). Sorry, I need to pay closer attention. > >Given alignas, aligned_storage seems completely superfluous. I >wonder why it's even still there... >
The only real benefit is that the name aligned_storage tells exactly what it does and it provides a default alignment for the requested size. >Martin >
