Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Marcel Raad (raad_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-24 09:35:54

Next message: Hartmut Kaiser: "Re: [boost] List of C++ 11 only Boost libraries and their status?"
Previous message: Krzysztof Jusiak: "Re: [boost] List of C++ 11 only Boost libraries and their status?"
In reply to: Andrzej Krzemienski: "Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?"
Next in thread: Vladimir Batov: "Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?"

Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Anyone else? Would you be affected if operator<(optional<T>, T) is
> poisoned?
> (but operator==(optional<T>, T) remains working)

I actually had a small bug in production code a few years ago after
changing an integral type to an optional because I hadn't expected this
behavior, so I think that would be good.

Next message: Hartmut Kaiser: "Re: [boost] List of C++ 11 only Boost libraries and their status?"
Previous message: Krzysztof Jusiak: "Re: [boost] List of C++ 11 only Boost libraries and their status?"
In reply to: Andrzej Krzemienski: "Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?"
Next in thread: Vladimir Batov: "Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk