Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library

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.

Hi,

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.

Cheers,
Joel de Guzman
joel_at_[hidden]
http://www.boost-consulting.com