From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-01 13:19:53
"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje
>> "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> If I change the code now to use T's operator=(), assignment of
>>> will have a _radically_ different semantics. A correct one, that's for
>>> but end user code might be fundamentally impacted.
>> You might want to consider whether it makes sense to change the
>> semantics only for non-reference types.
> Yes, I considered that.. the problem I have is that I really don't like
> Optional rebinding references upon assignment... its ideal principle is to
> do exactly as the wrapped type does and differ only when uninitialized cases
> are involved.
It depends on whether you view optional<T> as a T that might just
happen to be missing, or as a container for a T.
-- 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