From c2e925c920ee5bf84eb53e06c851f2f8ee316398 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sedenion <39583823+Sedeniono@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:57:55 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Minor update to the readme. --- README.md | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index f075847..9dc17da 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -871,9 +871,7 @@ The [discussion on reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/ybc4lf/tinyopti * [foonathan/tiny](https://github.com/foonathan/tiny): Seems to be abandoned and to not implement a fully fledged `std::optional` replacement. Moreover, a few years after the initial release of `tiny::optional`, the [`opt::option`](https://github.com/NUCLEAR-BOMB/option) library has been published (discussion on [reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1fgjhvu/optoption_a_replacement_for_stdoptional/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)). -It shares one of the motivations for `tiny::optional`, namely to not waste memory unnecessarily. It supports more types out-of-the-box than `tiny::optional`, where the empty state is stored in-place. -In contrast, `tiny::optional` also has the sentinel use-case as motivation (`tiny::optional`). -I have not studied `opt::option` in detail, nor have I seen any compile-time or runtime benchmarks on how the two libraries compare. +It supports more types out-of-the-box than `tiny::optional`, where the empty state is stored in-place. Also, Rust's `Option` implements some magic for [references](https://stackoverflow.com/q/16504643/3740047) and [bools](https://stackoverflow.com/q/73180983/3740047).