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