[boost] Re: postponed<> proposal

From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-02 23:20:00

"Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje
news:b3uj8q$uv9$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> David B. Held wrote:
>
> > "Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:b3trii$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.

Fernando Cacciola