Augustus Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> William Kempf wrote:
>>But in generic code you must follow the semantics of the concept,
>>and optional<> isn't useable when a SmartPointer concept is
>>required. Define the concept well enough, and optional<> becomes
>>useful in generic code.
I'm with Bill.
> 1) Fernando and I briefly went over defining an OptionalValue
> concept, of which real pointers, smart pointers, and optional would
> model (along with others, I'm sure). Is this on the right track to
> define the concept "well enough?"
Sounds right to me, FWIW.
> 2) Presuming three things:
> a) Pointer interface is kept
> b) OptionalValue concept is well defined
> c) deep comparison is kept
> would you be at all concerned about optional compiling when misused
> in generic code that presumes different semantics for the comparison
> operator? This feels like a booby-trap to me,
I'm not in the least worried.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
