From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-19 12:52:57
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Any idea about what to do with reference to reference problem?
> What's the problem?
Currently, optional<Y> has:
explicit optional ( T const& val )
T* operator->() ;
T& operator *();
those are all illegal if T is a reference type.
> > What was the idea of: optional< exactly<T&> > ?
> It's an ambiguity breaker: a way of specifying, when constructed with
> a variant<T,T&>, that you want to get the T& and not the T.
hmmm, shouldn't 'exactly' appear along with extract then?
What's the meaning of "optional< exactly<T&> > " by itself, without
variant<T,T&> in the scene?
-- Fernando Cacciola
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk