From: "Iain K.Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > :-) true. But it also does not have container semantics either. > I prefered your analogy with a special valued INT. Given that we > have > *opt1 == *opt2 > for ordinary value comparisons
But this doesn't work when one of the optionals is uninitialized. opt1 == opt2 (as proposed) is a safer version of the above, as its behavior is always defined. It also has the desirable property optional b(a); assert(b == a); for any a (i.e. it represents "equivalent to" as used by CopyConstructible and Assignable.) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
