On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. < jeffrey.hellrung@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds basically equivalent to a std::vector<T*> or (better) std::vector< std::unique_ptr<T> >, no? I would expect these explicit pointer-based containers to have a marginally smaller memory footprint than stable_vector< optional<T> >.
Actually you gave me doubt, so I made sure I was comparing std::vector<std::unique_ptr<T>> with the other variants in my tests. Now apparently I get roughly the same numbers as as boost::stable_vector< optional<T>> in performance measurements. Which makes me think my tests might be incorrect. :) I'll take a closer look soon. I'm surprised using new directly is as efficient as resetting an optional value. Joel Lamotte