RE: [boost] Re: Re: Formal Review Request: class optional<>

From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-21 17:24:59

> > Did you consider to provide bool specialization that does not have
> safe_bool
> > convertion and allowing it for all other types?
> >
> Yes, I did it too. The problem is that in this case, 
> optional<T!=bool> and
> optional<bool> would have different semantics; subtly 
> different actually,
> which is worst.
> I much prefer a consistent semantic.

What about vector<bool>?
IMO that this inconsistent semantic is reasonable price for better
usability.

Moreover I would prohibit optional<bool> at all. Area of application of such
class supposedly much better covered by tri-state bool discussed recently.

Gennadiy.