Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Fernando Cacciola wrote:
>> OK, I can see the motivation: We can have a noncopyable class
>> and need an optional object of it.
>> Following optional semantics, it would be spelled:
>>
>> boost::optional lock;
>> if ( cond )
>> lock.reset( RAII_lock(entity) ) ;
>>
>> Bu
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> OK, I can see the motivation: We can have a noncopyable class
> and need an optional object of it.
> Following optional semantics, it would be spelled:
>
> boost::optional lock;
> if ( cond )
> lock.reset( RAII_lock(entity) ) ;
>
> But there is a probem: as William poi
Anthony Williams wrote:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy writes:
> >
> > The following is a sketch of a potential use case for the
> > newly-accepted and already very useful 'optional' class.
> >
> > Suppose you have a pure RAII guard/locker which unconditionally
> > does its job:
> >
> > struct
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] 'optional' - request for extension
> Aleksey Gurtovoy writes:
>
Aleksey Gurtovoy writes:
>
> The following is a sketch of a potential use case for the newly-accepted and
> already very useful 'optional' class.
>
> Suppose you have a pure RAII guard/locker which unconditionally does its
> job:
>
> struct RAII_lock
> : boost::noncopyable
