Your are asking why can't the constructor be not explicit, right?
Well, this would allow the 'direct' syntax fn(1,3) that
Vincent wanted,
but...
It would entirely break the pointer semantics because the
following would be
allowed:
void foo()
{
optionalint opt ;
opt = 3 ;
- Original Message -
From: Rozental, Gennadiy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Boost mailing list' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Re: Re: Formal Review Request: class optional
Your are asking why can't the constructor be not explicit, right
Rozental, Gennadiy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
We already talked about this: pointer will add extra memory access,
optional
should not (in fact it should be inlined and won't be
different from by
value parameter)
You are
