From: Stephen Lamb (stevel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-21 17:29:58
I'm not absolutely sure I have the latest class optional but here goes.
Why does optional not have an assignment operator which takes a value?
Why is the following constructor explicit?
explicit optional ( optional<U> const& rhs )
I would think that this would actually be a case where implicit copy
construction would be welcomed.
The version of optional I have implements operators -> and * in terms of
the get function. The get function has a conditional that is
unnecessary extra work for -> and *. I think that -> and * should
either be implemented in terms of a function that doesn't have a
conditional in it or should be implemented in place.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk