Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Vladimir Batov (vb.mail.247_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-26 00:26:16

Vicente Botet wrote
> ...
> Following your reasoning, I will suggest to remove the implicit
> construction from T to optional
> <T>
> and/or remove the
> operator<(optional
> <T>
> , optional<>). If we can not live without them, we
> could always try to do whatever is better.

Vicente, you are not serious, right?.. It is just that you did not
like/agree with my "reasoning" and, so you suggested something unreasonable
(IMO) and presented it as a "consequence" of my "reasoning" just to indicate
how ridiculous mine was... Was that the idea?... Or I am misunderstanding
you post?

I cannot live without implicit T to optional<T> and prohibiting it will
break tonnes of my code and project code and Fernando Cacciola's code (if I
remember our similar discussions years ago)... and it'll break all that code
*now*... no need to wait and see... and "selling" optional<T> without
implicit T to optional<T> will be real hard... in my neck of the woods

View this message in context:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

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