Re: [Boost-users] [signals] signal-signal connections and thread-safety

From: Timmo Stange (ts_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-10 19:11:01

Frank Mori Hess wrote:

>> Yes, that'd be nice. I think a non-throwing partial specialization
>> (or a simulated one for compilers that don't support it) of last_value
>> would be good.
> 
> If I'm following, you're saying something like
> 
> last_value<T, U=T> would be like the current last_value<T> and
> last_value<T, optional<T> > would be like last_optional<T>?  It seems 
> easier just to provide a stand-alone last_optional<T> since the 
> implementation of last_value<T> is so trivial.

No, I meant a partial specialization for optional<T> directly, i.e.
last_value<optional<T> >. That makes the return value of that function
object (in our case the combiner) "optional", which reflects the
intention to have it not throwing for an empty input range pretty
well, I think.

Regards

Timmo Stange