From: Mat Marcus (mmarcus-boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-01 02:57:36
--On Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:56 PM -0400 Brian McNamara
> As for the use-case with the function returning a pair of iterators
> that we'd like to assign to optionals via a tie(), I think there
> should also be a different method in the interface which returns the
> "hole" in an empty optional where a new value can be constructed.
> See, e.g., my earlier message which defined an interface with
> operator+() and operator~().
I agree that it seems reasonable to have something other then get()
return the "hole". operator+() might be confusing when used with
optional<int>'s or other numeric types, so perhaps something like
unchecked_reference(), or unwrap() or any other non-operator() would
be best when getting at the "hole".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk