Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 12:49:04

----- Original Message -----
From: "William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library

>
> [snipped]
>
> I like what this is sounding like, but think I have a few more things to
> say.  Before I do so, however, I'd like to see precisely what the no
> interface looks like.  You don't have to repeat the semantic descriptions,
> just show us the public interface.
I'm working on it.

>  There are a few things you've said
> here that aren't totally clear with out this.  For instance, does
> "uninitialize()" become "reset()"?
Exactly.

> What about the issue of
> "deep-constness"?
>
I'm working on it...

I'm also thinking abut the lack of assignment as you suggested.

(There is a very good chance that I end up entirely adopting your
interface.. but I'm considering things one by one)

Fernando Cacciola