From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-10 09:22:57
Eelis van der Weegen <gmane_at_[hidden]> writes:
> So, in conclusion, the motivation for your dual_state is very valid, but
> personally I think Boost.Optional is a more appropriate design.
IMO the "guaranteed object delivery" feature makes for a useful
specialization of the Boost.Optional design. However, it would be
nice to have both; it's not an alternative to Boost.Optional.
There's a lot of resonance with the Boost.Parameter library in here.
-- 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