----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
> 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. I see. > > > Leaving optional<bool> inherently unsafe? > > Unsafe? The conversion from optional<bool> to bool might be confusing, but > it's not inherently unsafe. > I don't know. Isn't it unsafe the fact that you can mistakenly forget to write '*' and get the initialized state instead of the value? (now you get a compiler error) I don't know. I'd like to see others opinions. Should optional<> have safe_bool which would allow possibly unintended conversions from optional<bool> to bool? Will it be enough to put appropriate warnings and recommendations on the documentation? Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
