----- Original Message ----- From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > And my point, again, is that you can easily add an *easier* API > > that does exactly like your optional API *over* the variant. My > > concern is primarily about redundancy of code. I don't see any > > reason why the optional and the variant can't share the same > > underlying infrastructure. > > > Aha! > You just meant that optional<>, with a given interface, could be implemented > on top of variant_t<T,nil_t>? > Yes, definitely. > In fact, if optional<> is accepted, when we have variant<>, it is quite > likely that I do just that. Exactly. You might have missed it but I actually voted "yes" for acceptance. I have needs for the variant (Hey variant guys where are you?) and your optional class might fill that need now. I'm sure Doug knows why :-) As an aside, you might want to consider continuing and actually implementing a variant (at least to awaken the variant guys, or maybe not if you get there first). I think that will be a logical next-step to take. See http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Variant Cheers, Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
