Fernando Cacciola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You did sell the idea that it can be a union, but I held to the idea that > it can just as well be considered as *REALLY REALLY REALLY* > nothing else but a container that has a T or is empty. > > I agree there is nothing wrong with the union model, but I don't see > why is it better than the other.
In fear that this is becoming non-productive and as I've already mentioned that I respect whatever you decide on (I'm satisfied with the optional regardless of its quirks), this will be my final post on the issue. The problem, the way I see it, is that optional mixes at least 3 concepts all at once. First, the concept of variant<T, nil>, second is the concept of optional as a container and third (I know you disagree, but) pointer- like concept. I understand that the optional started out with the pointer- like concept and moved on to embrace other concepts to satisfy the needs of people who want some features which do not fit quite nicely with the pointer-like concept (e.g. == and != and soon direct assignment?). Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
