From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-09 23:45:50
On 2/9/07, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
> > Why would it? T* and T& have very different semantics.
> An optional T& has closer semantics to T* than a non-optional one.
Didn't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase?
> The most important thing, however, is that it will be more efficient
> given the implementation of optional (optional could eventually fix that
> with a specialization).
That's not always the most important thing :-P
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
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