David B. Held wrote: > "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> David Abrahams wrote: >> >> > "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> >> I would like some feedback about the logic behind it. >> > >> > Do you have a use-case for this? >> >> Sorry, I do not understand; you mean someone that would want to >> use it this way? I am not sure, but it would be better for continous >> optional<>s this way? > > Dave is asking you if you are solving a problem that doesn't exist. ;) > Your answer seems to indicate as much. ;)
I do not have any use-case. Thanks anyways. Maybe it would be better to simply disable EH overhead with some BOOST macro. _That_ would be really really great then... -- Philippe A. Bouchard _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
