Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [signals2] Test failure in C++11 (trivial fix for incorrect usage of boost::optional)
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-27 18:20:02

On 27/02/2014 08:15 p.m., Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> The C++11 "explicit operator bool" feature is stricter than the safe bool
>> idiom. !max is fine, because !x is considered a boolean context for x; max
>> == false is not, because x == y is not a boolean context for x or y.
> Even if optional is changed to use
> explicit operator bool, does that exclude the possibility of adding
> free operator== and operator != methods which take one argument as an
> optional and one argument as a bool? Would such overloads actually
> introduce any dangerous behavior?

What would those overloads do for `optional<bool>`?


Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-

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