----- Original Message ----- From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It's trivial to make that a free function like get. Or further, to make > > a subset API for optional. > > > You can certainly do the same with variant. The point is that with > optional<> it is *easier*. > With optional<> you don't need to specify the type of the wrapped value all > the time as with variant; and you don't need to explicitly test if the > variant holds a "nil_t" in order to see if it is initialized. And my point, again, is that you can easily add an *easier* API that does exactly like your optional API *over* the variant. My concern is primarily about redundancy of code. I don't see any reason why the optional and the variant can't share the same underlying infrastructure. Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
