Re: [boost] Re: (corrected) review of optional library

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-16 08:48:34

From: "Dave Gomboc" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
> I would guess (handwaving alert ;-) that the traditional mechanism for
> indicating an "optional" value uses a pointer because that was more
> convenient than passing a separate flag alongside the value.

A pointer can be used in situations where value+flag cannot. You may not
have a value to pass, and you may not be able to create one.