Joel de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Fernando Cacciola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > First of all, let's not confuse syntax with semantics. > > optional<> HAS strict value semantics. > > No it does not. The accessors have pointer behavior! > Well, we would argue forever since it is a matter of how much weight it is put in each part of the behaviour and how that sum up to make it "X semantic".
In the case of pointers, it is IMO the aliasing and shallow copy behaviour what is relevant to consider a given behaviour as pointer semantics. The presence of operators *() and ->() don't count as pointer "semantics" to me. Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
