From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-21 15:30:22
From: Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]>
> "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > // (2) Anthony's proposal:
> > o.reset(rb); // still some room for doubts?
> How about
I don't think that's any better and it is more verbose.
> does that suggest rebinding? I was imagining that reset (or replace_with)
I can just as easily infer assignment as rebinding. Jason Hise's
suggestion of rebind() would be quite explicit and could be
optimized to just do assignment for builtin types.
> would always rebind/replace the contained element, rather than assign to
> it. Then it would also work with my non-assignable types.
Yes, an interface for non-assignable types that doesn't requiring
parameterizing optional would be good. IOW, o.rebind(rb) rather
than o = optional<T&>(rb).
> * we could provide a means of capturing a value into an optional:
> std::pair<Foo, Bar> do_stuff();
> boost::optional<Foo> foo;
> boost::optional<Bar> bar;
That looks nice.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk