Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Apparently a good design is to define Optional!T with a minimum of > member functions (ideally none) and have it use the "alias this" feature > to masquerade as a T. That way Optional!T looks and feels much like a T, > except that it supports a function > > bool isNull(T)(Optional!T value); > > Am I on the right track?
You need some syntactic way to distinguish the contained value from the container. Using "alias this" seems messy here. Optional!Optional!T is both valid and likely to occur. -- Rainer Deyke - [email protected]
