Using optional<T> as "pointer" type

[Matthias Vallentin]

Would it be possible to use optional<T> instead of unique_ptr<T> as --cpp-ptr-type? I was wondering whether that's a feasible alternative to remove pressure from the allocator.

More generally, what are the type requirements for feasible? Is there some form of concept that describes them?

[Wouter van Oortmerssen]

We haven't documented what other pointers work instead, since we haven't tested that. Most smart-pointer types should work. Easiest is to just try and see.. please report any issues.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Matthias Vallentin <matt...@vallentin.net> wrote:

Would it be possible to use optional<T> instead of unique_ptr<T> as --cpp-ptr-type? I was wondering whether that's a feasible alternative to remove pressure from the allocator.

More generally, what are the type requirements for feasible? Is there some form of concept that describes them?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FlatBuffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to flatbuffers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.