|
|
Boost : |
From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-30 17:20:22
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> My main argument is that if those were allowed, you could write:
>
> optional<int> opt ;
> opt = 1 ;
> int i = *opt ;
>
> and the assymetry didn't look right to me.
I agree that this looks wrong. What about this syntax:
optional<int> opt;
*opt = 3;
int i = *opt;
opt->foo();
My feeling is, that if it's possible to implement it, than it's the
right interface to go for. But you're the optional expert... ;)
Regards, Daniel
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk