[boost] Re: postponed<> proposal

From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-02 22:45:54

David B. Held wrote:

> "Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:b3trii$j3i$1_at_main.gmane.org...
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> > "Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >
>> >>     I would like some feedback about the logic behind it.
>> >
>> > Do you have a use-case for this?
>>
>> Sorry, I do not understand; you mean someone that would want to
>> use it this way?  I am not sure, but it would be better for continous
>> optional<>s this way?
> 
> Dave is asking you if you are solving a problem that doesn't exist. ;)
> Your answer seems to indicate as much. ;)

I do not have any use-case.  Thanks anyways.

Maybe it would be better to simply disable EH overhead with some BOOST 
macro.  _That_ would be really really great then...

-- 
Philippe A. Bouchard