David Abrahams said: > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Tanton Gibbs said: >>>> optional<int> opt0(1); >>>> optional<int> opt1(2); >>>> (opt0 == opt1) // true >>> >>> I would not have any problem with this returning false. In the >>> normal ptr world: >>> char c, d; >>> char* p, *q; >>> p = &c; >>> q = &d; >>> >>> if( p == q ) // false >>> >>> People expect it to compare memory locations, not initialization >>> status. Therefore, I would have no problem with operator== returning >>> true only if both >>> were uninitialized. >> >> I agree with this. The optional<> concept takes some type and extends >> it's possible values to include a new "uninitialized" value. It seems >> wholly logical to me for this: >> >> 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 > "2?"----------^
Actually, "e"... the keys were close enough together for my small fingers to smash the wrong one ;). William E. Kempf _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
