> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Abrahams > Sent: 12 December 2002 19:03 >
>But it doesn't, really. If you're going to have deep constness and >deep assignment, the only thing remaining that makes it pointer-like >is the operator*/operator-> interface. At that point, it's just a >very convenient shorthand for saying .front()/.begin() on a >container-of-1. I understand. But, in general, I don't think users will find it intutative to think of it as a container of one. Given that it is only sytactic sugar I would probably prefer that they be left undefined then, as I suspect that they will cause confusion. >??? it's not as though the function returns false randomly! I never implied that it did! >It tells you whether one optional is substitutable for another in the >same expression (ignoring the address-of operator), which is the >essence of equivalence in C++. I understood that the first time it was said. I don't feel strongly enough about this though to carry the argument on further. Just my 2p worth. /ikh _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
