----- Original Message ----- From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> optional<> is trying to model using C++ a concept that > it is not really covered by the language, that of uninitialzed values. > It uses pointer semantics *just* because pointers are the only sort of > C++ objects which has a clear uninitialized state. Hi, Probably a dumb question but allow me to ask anyway: Wouldn't a more generic variant<T0, T1...TN> class do what the optional is trying to do? I feel that optional<T> is just a variant<T, nil_t> in disguise. Correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
