[optional] Could (& should) optional be more space efficient?

From my initial look through boost::optional's implementation, it seems as though it's doing nothing to optimize its space usage in some trivial cases.
The first one I was surprised by was optional

On 11 April 2011 13:19, David Blaikie
From my initial look through boost::optional's implementation, it seems as though it's doing nothing to optimize its space usage in some trivial cases.
This topic came up back in October. Check out the discussion at < http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/209172> -- Nevin ":-)" Liber mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com (847) 691-1404
participants (2)
-
David Blaikie
-
Nevin Liber