From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-25 11:44:40
Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Edward Diener wrote:
>> Do you really want the key to an associative container to be an optional
>> value ? I would be hard-pressed to find a use for that.
> FWIW, the Signals library actually does this internally (although with
> boost::any objects instead of boost::optional objects). However, I would
> contend that the need is too specialized to warrant adding an operator<.
Seems entirely reasonable to me to add it. It looks like at least two
people have needed exactly those semantics. What's the cost?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk