"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Any idea about what to do with reference to reference problem?
>
> What's the problem?
>
Currently, optional<Y> has:
explicit optional ( T const& val )
T* get();
T* operator->() ;
T& operator *();
those are all illegal if T is a reference type.
> >
> > 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.
>
hmmm, shouldn't 'exactly' appear along with extract then?
What's the meaning of "optional< exactly<T&> > " by itself, without
variant<T,T&> in the scene?
--
Fernando Cacciola
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
