David Abrahams wrote: > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Joel de Guzman wrote: >>> David Abrahams wrote: >>> >>>> BTW, I just realized that a conversion from variant<T> to >>>> optional<T> could be used to do extraction as well. Maybe it
-------------^ >>>> would be better to ditch extract altogether and just use optional? >>> >>> I think this makes sense. The disadvantage is the overhead of >>> optional just to do "extract"ion. >> >> That means an extra copy > > Really? You can't convert to an optional<T&>? You said "optional<T>" above. It may be possible to use optional<T&> (is it supported?) or optional< reference_wrapper<T> > but this looks like an "obfuscated C++" entry to me compared to T*. What's wrong with it? What does optional<T&> add? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
