From: Iain K.Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-12 14:28:16
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: 12 December 2002 19:03
>But it doesn't, really. If you're going to have deep constness and
>deep assignment, the only thing remaining that makes it pointer-like
>is the operator*/operator-> interface. At that point, it's just a
>very convenient shorthand for saying .front()/.begin() on a
I understand. But, in general, I don't think users will find it
intutative to think of it as a container of one. Given that it
is only sytactic sugar I would probably prefer that they be left
undefined then, as I suspect that they will cause confusion.
>??? it's not as though the function returns false randomly!
I never implied that it did!
>It tells you whether one optional is substitutable for another in the
>same expression (ignoring the address-of operator), which is the
>essence of equivalence in C++.
I understood that the first time it was said. I don't feel strongly
enough about this though to carry the argument on further. Just my
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk