Re: [boost] Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-13 11:49:53

Anthony Williams wrote:
> "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Specifically... wouldn't you find odd that the result of assignment
>> depends on whether the lvalue was previously absent or not? Don't
>> you agree that _most_ people would call _that_ counterintuitive?
>
> That's what optional now does for non-reference types!

Well, using your analogy below for non-reference types, yes, you're right.
Well, finally something that can help me weight the models.

> If you're
> going to use assignment for the underlying type in optional<X>, then
> a special case for references that rebinds the reference seems wrong.
>
Yes, special cases are awkard.. That's always the case and I always agreed 
with that.
What is interesting of your post is that you have shown that this is indeed 
a special case since assignment of non-reference types does depend on the 
lvalue being absent or not. Is just that for non reference types, the 
difference is mot while for reference types is very important.

Please, wait for my post on c.s.cpp so we can continue there.

Best

-- 
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft
http://fcacciola.50webs.com/