From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-05 11:06:47
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk