Comments for The other branch

Comment on ISO C++ committee draft by robdesbois

robdesbois — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:57:38 +0000

Ah yes, I forgot to encode the ‘<’ and ‘>’ characters after pasting the example – thanks.

Comment on ISO C++ committee draft by foo bar

foo bar — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:06:44 +0000

I do not believe optional can be used without the type parameter

Comment on ISO C++ committee draft by robdesbois

robdesbois — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:51:37 +0000

Thanks Nate I did indeed; all fixed up now.

Comment on ISO C++ committee draft by Nate Kohl

Nate Kohl — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:20:41 +0000

Did you forget the template parameter on std::dynarray?

Comment on Boost compile error “no class template named ‘result’” by polythenepam

polythenepam — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:51:44 +0000

errrrrrrrr…….. like the photos x

Comment on Extending the empty base class optimisation (EBO) to members by Tomalak Geret'kal

Tomalak Geret'kal — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:06:34 +0000

Yay, standard citations! Pleasing.

Comment on Extending the empty base class optimisation (EBO) to members by robdesbois

robdesbois — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:15:51 +0000

Sorry but that’s not correct: although an empty class instance cannot have zero size, as per the quote from the 2011 standard (§1.8/5) a base class subobject may have zero size. The 2003 standard has the same spec with same section number. I don’t have the 1998 spec to hand. (Note that for obvious reasons I have removed the spam URL from your comment and assumed that you really did wish to discuss the post.)

Comment on Extending the empty base class optimisation (EBO) to members by gold account

gold account — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:47:35 +0000

Size of an object is nothing but the cumulative size of it’s members. And NO, no class can have a zero size, even an empty class will have a size of 1 byte.

Comment on Virtual move constructor by Tomalak Geret'kal

Tomalak Geret'kal — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:09:30 +0000

Indeed; the difference is that you want to construct a clone, not assign a clone… and [copy] constructors may not be virtual.

Comment on Virtual move constructor by robdesbois

robdesbois — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:28:30 +0000

Eric – unfortunately that won’t work. The motivation is similar to that of the ‘virtual constructor’ idiom, aka ‘clone’: we don’t know exactly what type of object to create, since this is a polymorphic hierarchy and we know only the base class. This is why we must delegate the task of object creation to the derived type through virtual dispatch.