From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-02 23:20:00
"Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje
> 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...
Which EH overhead?
Anyway, the problem with your proposal is that as I said before the
boolean flag is initialized before the object is really constructed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk