From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-25 11:42:05
Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:40:44 -0300, Fernando Cacciola
> <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>Now we're talking ;)
> Indeed you couldn't respond earlier :-P
>>In fact, with this solution there is no need to separate none_t from
>>none (need that arose only from the fact that 'none' caused problems in
>>precompiled headers in borland -at least- but none_t had to be defined
> I was curious to know if the problem still existed without the unnamed
> but we'll probably wonder for the eternity :-)
I know it did and I think it still does.
Borland refuses to put data in a precompiled header no matter what
namespace (unnamed or not) you put it.
> can we also decide if this is some useful toy we want to share with
> the lib world or an implementation detail?
I don't have a strong opinion or problem with regarding this as an
implementation detail, but I do need to find a nice solution, like the
one Anthony just proposed.
Whether this deserves to be at the root level is independent from the
Anyway, I think none is useful outside optional<>, specifically, for
variant<>, tuple<> and even any.
I take you disagree. Can you explain why?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk