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
> > 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
Moreover I would prohibit optional<bool> at all. Area of application of such
class supposedly much better covered by tri-state bool discussed recently.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk