From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-03 19:30:25
Andrei Alexandrescu <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> By the way, could optional<T> use variant<T, SomeInsipidType> as a backend?
I suggested that before. Now I think that it is not practical.
It can, but it will not be optimal.
I see it the other way now. I suggest that a partial specialization of
variant<T, empty> be written that takes advantage of optional<T>
in its implementation.
I think now that the partial specialization of variant<T, empty> will
satisfy the anti-pointer-like crowd. variant seems to have the right
interface. Perhaps we were barking up the wrong tree?
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk