Re: [boost] Re: More on the optional class.

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-21 07:57:18

From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>
> On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:08, you (Fernando Cacciola) wrote:
> > It all means that safe_bool is safer than 'operator bool()', but not
safer
> > than 'operator T const*' (when the later is applicable).
>
> I disagree with this. Peter Dimov chose to use a member pointer
specifically
> because they do not allow pointer arithmetic or ordering. If one uses a
> conversion to a pointer, expressions such as "A + 2", "A++", and "A < B"
must
> also be poisoned.

Don't forget

optional<T> opt;

delete opt;

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.