"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Fernando Cacciola said: > > > >> However, and very unfortunately, this _requires_ the properly well > >> defined relational operators to be disallowed, because they can > >> effectively create practical problems if optional is mistaken for a > >> pointer and used, for example, to test for aliased equivalence as you do > >> when you compare pointers. > > > > So, just to keep pointer-like operations you're going to make the > > interface difficult to use for many valid use cases? > > My feeling, FWIW, is that usefulness should trump mis-usability in > this case. I'd rather see deep relational operators and a > pointer-like interface, than to see one or the other sacrificed just > becausewe think it might confuse people. > I'm glad to see this since I was just trying to make my mind on this as I was answering William post.
Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
