Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-21 05:38:07

On November 19, 2014 5:05:57 PM EST, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> We need some kind of make factory that 
>results in something that is implicitly convertible to M<T>.
>
>what do you think of
>
>   f( explicit 1 );
>
>to state that we want an explicit conversion to a M<int>?

-1

A change in the overload set can change the meaning of such an expression or make it ambiguous, so it is better to state explicitly the intended conversion.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)