Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Direct value accesing via implicit conversion: int i = opt
seems wrong because this is the operation that can lead to undefined
behaviour.
Doesn't have to be undefined behaviour.
Yes it does.
Accesing a value that isn't there is by all means
Mat Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Monday, September 01, 2003 9:52 PM -0400 Brian McNamara
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip]
As a final aside, I think much of this thread is degenerating into
Parkinson's Bicycle Shed[*], with respect to is it a
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mat Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Monday, September 01, 2003 3:37 PM -0300 Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
One can think of an optionalT as
Mat Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
Here's a question that tries to get to the crux of the pointer-like
interface matter. Should T* and optionalT both be models of a
pointer-like syntactic concept?
pointers, iterators and optionalT are indeed models of
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:48 PM -0300 Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
For this reason, and for the fact that I have some upcoming
deadlines at work, I'll summarize what I see and where I stand now,
then I'll step back a bit for a while.
I hope you come back
From: Fernando Cacciola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mat Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Those who answer no to the above question may
prefer to write code that uniformly handles T and optionalT.
I doubt such uniformity can be implemented smoothly.
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You did sell the idea that it can be a union, but I held to the idea that
it can just as well be considered as *REALLY REALLY REALLY*
nothing else but a container that has a T or is empty.
I agree there is nothing wrong with the union model, but I
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Direct value accesing via implicit conversion: int i = opt
seems wrong because this is the operation that can lead to
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if I agree with you that an optionalT should not be a T,
an optionalT is definitely not a pointer to T.
Definitely!
If HTML had blinking banners I think I'd use one
