From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I understand your reasoning, but what do you suggest?
I suggest that we need not give much weight to optional<bool> when designing optional<T>'s interface. > Leaving optional<bool> inherently unsafe? Unsafe? The conversion from optional<bool> to bool might be confusing, but it's not inherently unsafe. > with a strong remark on the > documentation that you should been using optional<bool> in the first place? This would be a good idea. > Or specializing optional<bool>, perhaps, with a empty definition so that it > is explicitly banned? No, as you point out, this would create problems when generic code that uses optional<T> receives T=bool. But generic code wouldn't expect the conversion from optional<T> to bool to yield the value of the optional, right? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
