"Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > All right. Now that we've settled on the conceptual validity of > optional<T&>... > Can we have it?
I don't see why not. > Any idea about what to do with reference to reference problem? What's the problem? > I have to look at reference_wrapper() yet... > > What was the idea of: optional< exactly<T&> > ? It's an ambiguity breaker: a way of specifying, when constructed with a variant<T,T&>, that you want to get the T& and not the T. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
