From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Yes, I thought about that, too. But if the current swap semantics are > > retained, it should simply be removed. Otherwise optional<T>::swap must > > offer at least swap(T&, T&)'s guarantee. > > > I'm not sure I follow. > What are swap(T&, T&) guarantees in general? > I thought this depended on the specific type.
True, swap()'s guarantees depend on the type. If T provides a nothrow/strong/basic swap, optional<T>::swap should be at least nothrow/strong/basic, respectively. I think that this can be done provided that T(T const &) is strong and T::~T is nothrow. > Anyway, as I posted recently, I'm just about to conclude that relational > operators > could be properly defined as a synonim for: get_pointer(o1) .relop. > get_pointer(o2). > I found this definition totally consistent with pointer semantics and the > implied > aliasings. Optional does not have pointer semantics. Two optionals can never alias each other. "Consistent with pointer semantics" doesn't make sense. Optional is not a pointer. Don't try to make it into one; you'll arrive at shared_ptr. ;-) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
