"William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Fernando Cacciola said: > > Due to some significant changes to the optional<> class, I had to upload > > a new version so that the review can continue based on the revised > > class. > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/optional.zip > > > > The new zip contains the new code, new test and new documentation. > > > > NOTE: The header optional_detail is no longer needed so you may remove > > it before unpacking the zip. > > Documentation issues/questions: > > * "its safe on most platforms which treat null pointer dereferencing as > undefined behaviour which is effectively a core dump or an non-language > exception" > > I know what you're saying here, but I don't like it. Undefined behavior > is undefined behavior, and can never be considered "safe". I'm not sure > how to rework it to convey what you want, but I think it needs reworked. > OK. You're right. The wording is incorrect.
> * The "safe bool" should be documented in the same manner as it is in > shared_ptr, i.e. "operator unspecified-bool-type() const; // never > throws". > OK. I figure that if I can borrow the implementation I can borrow the documentation too :-) > * Does the "assert(*opt == v)" in the description for "explicit > optional<T>::optional( T const& v )" indicate that the type T must be > comparable? (I know the documentation clearly says otherwise, but it's > not clear that this is a non-normative part of the documentation.) > Good question. That form of asserts are intended to show the postconditions that hold after each of the operations described. But they are not meant to imply that the type T must support the expression; rather that if the expression is defined, then the condition must hold. Pehaps a a note to this effect can be added before the semantics description. > * In the acknowledgements for Gennadiy Rozental you describe the "value > based" implementation which no longer exists. > Opps! Thanks. Anyway, after the review I will have to add several entries to this section :-) > Interface issues/questions: > > * Is there a reason for operator!() when we have the safe bool? > I left it because shared_ptr has it. I figure that there must be some contexts where the safe_bool conversion doesn't work. > * Should you provide a templated assignment to parallel the templated > constructor? > Another good question! I can't see why not... if it is correct to have one it is correct to have the other, IMO. -- Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
