From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-26 08:54:47
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:28:18 -0300, "Fernando Cacciola"
>FWIW, it can't go under the detail folder and/or namespace. That's how I
>initially did it but someone noticed that "none" and "none_t" are part of
>the public interface for optional<>, so these must be at some "user level"
I see. Guess I should look at the optional<> docs. I participated to
its initial discussion but I don't remember the existence of none,
just of a default constructor. Unexcusably I thought it was an
>IOW, the implementation of "none_t" and "none" are a detail, but _they_ are
Understood. This slightly changes my perspective.
>They can be considered general or specific, which is different, so if they
>don't go into the root folder they must go into /optional (if they are
>considered specific), or /utility if not.
>But then I don't see much of a difference between the root folder and
>/utility for this.
Well, perhaps it being documented independently from optional<> in the
latter case. I also find that something like boost::none doesn't
suggest enough, whereas optional::none mostly does.
-- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk