Boost logo

Boost :

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-25 09:29:46

Joe Gottman wrote:
> In order to avoid having an unnamed namespace inside a header file, none.hpp
> has been rewritten as
> namespace boost {
> none_t const none = ((none_t)0) ;
> } // namespace
> But if two source files contain none.hpp won't this violate the
> one-definition rule? What's wrong with defining none_t and none as follows:
> namespace boost {
> enum none_t {none = 0};
> }
> This allows us to have a unique value boost::none of type boost::none_t that
> can be included in any number of source files without violating the ODR.
Hi Joe,

Sorry I couldn't respond earlier (having two jobs is killing me,
although I can't say I don't enjoy it at the end of the month ;)

As Martin said the problem with an enum is that it isn't type-safe, and
in the particular case of optional<> that is very important because '0'
is a "valid" value (so it's much more important than with a smart pointer)

Fernando Cacciola

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at