"Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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... > > Which EH overhead?
Anyway, the problem with your proposal is that as I said before the boolean flag is initialized before the object is really constructed. Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
