Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Felix Uhl (felix.uhl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-26 03:24:47

Vincente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

>I hope it is clear now that I don't want to change optional but see what 
>the safer optional could be with the ongoing C++ proposals.


Fair enough, different users want different behaviour,

but how is optional not safe in any way?


operator<(optional<T>, T) does not throwing any kinds of exceptions

when operator<(T,T) doesn’t, does it?




---

Felix Uhl