Sorry for confusion, the reply below obviously belongs to a different
thread.
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Andreas Huber wrote:
> > P.S. Is it a good idea to use mpl::aux::msvc_eti_base on all platforms
(on
> > conforming compilers I'd expect it to "call" mpl::identity) or should I
> > #ifdef my way
Andreas Huber wrote:
> P.S. Is it a good idea to use mpl::aux::msvc_eti_base on all platforms (on
> conforming compilers I'd expect it to "call" mpl::identity) or should I
> #ifdef my way around it?
Yep, it's intentionally written in the way so that you don't have to #ifdef
in your code.
Aleksey
"Fernando Cacciola \(Home\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> optional opt( in_place(point(0,0),point(10,10)));
>
> here, in_place() is used to forward T's ctor argument to optional<> so that
> T is effectively constructed in-place right within the aligned storage.
>
> Is this what you want?
I have
- Original Message -
From: "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Re: partial<> proposal
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> E
"Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Example:
>>> optional i;
>>>
>>> new (i) int(17);
>>
>> Which copy ctor are you referring to?
>> And why do we want to prevent copy ctor usages?
>
> Because optional<> will be able to handle types without co
"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 type.
Sounds like you want
type_with_alignment:
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
>> Example:
>> optional i;
>>
>> new (i) int(17);
>
> Which copy ctor are you referring to?
> And why do we want to prevent copy ctor usages?
Because optional<> will be able to handle types without copy constructors
(this was the main purpose of partial<> in fact). I
David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
>>> Example:
>>> optional i;
>>>
>>> new (i) int(17);
>>
>>
>> Ex. 1:
>> // Class Widget has a heavy copy constructor
>> optional i;
>>
>> new (i) Widget(this, ...);
>
>
> Soo... what are you demonstrating here? Please spell it out. Normal
> construction of a widget i
