From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-10 15:21:22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]>
> optional<> is trying to model using C++ a concept that
> it is not really covered by the language, that of uninitialzed values.
> It uses pointer semantics *just* because pointers are the only sort of
> C++ objects which has a clear uninitialized state.
Probably a dumb question but allow me to ask anyway:
Wouldn't a more generic variant<T0, T1...TN> class do what the
optional is trying to do? I feel that optional<T> is just a variant<T, nil_t>
in disguise. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Joel de Guzman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk