> optional<int> a(); > optional<int> b(); > optional<int> c(1); > optional<int> d(2); > optional<int> e(2); > > assert(a == b); // both uninitialized > assert(a != c); // one uninitialized > assert(c != d); // both initialized to different values > assert(d == 3); // both initialized to same value > > However, not all types wrapped in optional<T> will be comparable... so, > I'm not adverse to leaving comparison operators out just to simplify the > interface. I just don't agree with the current rationale. > > William E. Kempf
I assume you mean assert( d == optional<>(2) ); However, I still think this is incorrect....consider char c = 'c', d = 'c'; char *p, *q; p = &c; q = &d; assert( p != q ); It doesn't matter what their values are...it is the addresses of those values that matter. Therefore, I think that, if optional<> is a smart ptr, assert( d != optional<>(2) ); must be true. Only if two elements are uninitialized should they be equal...otherwise, we must compare their "pointer" values, not their element values. Tanton _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
