Re: [boost] [optional] std::tr2::optional

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] std::tr2::optional
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-20 03:00:35

On Saturday, November 19, 2011 11:22:25 Sebastian Redl wrote:
> On 19.11.2011, at 00:16, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> > 3. T is neither copyable nor moveable -- it is like a scope guard, or
> > boost::scoped_ptr. In this case optional<T> still provides assignment by
> > making a "pseudo destructor call" followed by a call to placement new.
> 
> Do we even want the third variant? That is, do we want to support
> tr2::optional of something that is neither copyable nor movable? My gut
> instinct says no, that's unintuitive.

Why not? I've had such use cases and I don't see why that would be wrong.