Boost logo

Boost :

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-10 16:28:23

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library

> From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]>
> > I understand your reasoning, but what do you suggest?
> I suggest that we need not give much weight to optional<bool> when
> optional<T>'s interface.

I see.
> > Leaving optional<bool> inherently unsafe?
> Unsafe? The conversion from optional<bool> to bool might be confusing, but
> it's not inherently unsafe.
I don't know.
Isn't it unsafe the fact that you can mistakenly forget to write '*' and get
the initialized state instead of the value? (now you get a compiler error)

I don't know.
I'd like to see others opinions.

Should optional<> have safe_bool which would allow possibly unintended
conversions from optional<bool> to bool?
Will it be enough to put appropriate warnings and recommendations on the

Fernando Cacciola

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at