|
|
Boost : |
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-09 21:03:48
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
> Why would it? T* and T& have very different semantics.
An optional T& has closer semantics to T* than a non-optional one.
The most important thing, however, is that it will be more efficient
given the implementation of optional (optional could eventually fix that
with a specialization).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk