"Matt Calabrese" <rivorus@gmail.com> writes:
On 5/18/06, Howard Hinnant <hinnant@twcny.rr.com> wrote: Actually you don't even need a new type compressed_tuple. You could put this functionality straight into tuple. It'd be a royal pain to do for tuple sizes greater than 3 or 4 though. Dave, how many empty members do you find yourself glomming together? I often have several potentially empty members but usually have at least that many non- empty members to spread them around on (I have one example where wanted to glom two empty members onto a non-empty member).
True, though one [potential] problem with that would be that compressed pairs and tuples are allowed to share storage for empty types,
I don't think so. See line 258 of http://www.boost-consulting.com/boost/boost/detail/compressed_pair.hpp -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com