Boost logo

Boost :

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-05 11:06:47

Hi Sascha,

> [...]
> But when i store values where the type has an
> inline NaT value (for example NULL pointers) i cannot and need not
> use optional.

Can you explain why you cannot use optional<>?
I definitely see that you don't need it, but for the sake of genericity I
just wouldn't mind the fact that some types do have an identifiable null
value and use optional<> all along.

Fernando Cacciola

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