> > We already talked about this: pointer will add extra memory access, > optional > > should not (in fact it should be inlined and won't be > different from by > > value parameter) > > > You are mis-remembering our previous talk. ....
No. I do remembr that we agreed that pointer semantics is better. I still agree with that. Nevertheless my point above was following: Even if optional<T> has pointer semantics, unlike pointers *optional<T> won't produce extra memory access. > > implicit conversion to optional should not be dangerous anyway. > > > I disagree. > Implicit conversions are usually problematic, but with > optional<>, it is > even worst, since > (1) a conversion from an uninitialized optional is undefined -----------------------------^ we talked about "to" conversion > (2) the distinction between > (a) the operation of testing whether an optional is > initialized or not > (b) the operation of accesing the optional value (in > this case via a > conversion) we talked about "to" conversion > Maybe, but actually, I don't think optional<> should work > with references. > It is supposed to wrap a 'value', not a reference/pointer. > > Fernando Cacciola Why? I always did not like the fact that I need to switch to pointers when my reference argument became optional. Gennadiy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
