From: Frank Laub (frank.laub_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-22 04:16:39
> Frank Laub wrote:
> >> Is there a particular reason why this compiler complains about the
> >> conversion whereas the others are fine with it? Would you consider
> >> this change to support this compiler?
> > I'm happy to make a change that supports more compilers. Thanks for
> > it out on Borland. I'll have an update soon.
> Actually, this is not about supporting more compilers - this about
> fixing a bug. Putting 'return false' there is a bug, plain and simple,
> and 'return optional()' is the right thing to do, whether we care about
> more compilers support or not...
I hadn't realized that this was an improper usage of optional. I returned
'false' because it felt like a 'natural' thing to return as that of a
failure. Because the compiler and my tests showed this to work, I figured
optional had a special bool constructor or something. I've noticed others
use a 'none' type. I suppose the default ctor is the preferred way?
Thanks for the heads up.
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