Re: [Boost-users] [optional]

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [optional]
From: Roman Perepelitsa (roman.perepelitsa_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-06 06:26:59

2009/5/6 Roman Perepelitsa <roman.perepelitsa_at_[hidden]>

> It's less efficient, because all arguments will be copied. It's also more
> typing, longer compilation times and more code generated.
>
>

There is one more caveat. This approach does not work with polymorphic types
(you'll get slicing). I don't think there are any advantages in passing
boost::optional<T> compared to const T*.

Roman Perepelitsa.