> > Did you consider to provide bool specialization that does not have > safe_bool > > convertion and allowing it for all other types? > > > Yes, I did it too. The problem is that in this case, > optional<T!=bool> and > optional<bool> would have different semantics; subtly > different actually, > which is worst. > I much prefer a consistent semantic.
What about vector<bool>? IMO that this inconsistent semantic is reasonable price for better usability. Moreover I would prohibit optional<bool> at all. Area of application of such class supposedly much better covered by tri-state bool discussed recently. Gennadiy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
