From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-16 17:50:11
Augustus Saunders <infinite_8_monkey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> William Kempf wrote:
>>But in generic code you must follow the semantics of the concept,
>>and optional<> isn't useable when a SmartPointer concept is
>>required. Define the concept well enough, and optional<> becomes
>>useful in generic code.
I'm with Bill.
> 1) Fernando and I briefly went over defining an OptionalValue
> concept, of which real pointers, smart pointers, and optional would
> model (along with others, I'm sure). Is this on the right track to
> define the concept "well enough?"
Sounds right to me, FWIW.
> 2) Presuming three things:
> a) Pointer interface is kept
> b) OptionalValue concept is well defined
> c) deep comparison is kept
> would you be at all concerned about optional compiling when misused
> in generic code that presumes different semantics for the comparison
> operator? This feels like a booby-trap to me,
I'm not in the least worried.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk