Brian McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 10:41:15AM -0700, Mat Marcus wrote:
>> also interesting, although I think that readability suffers. I'd give
>> up bool conversion and operator! to avoid the need for ~ if that would
>> reasonably solve the muddling issues. But perhaps there would be too
>> many other problems -- I haven't explored this deeply yet.
>
> Right; to clarify, I don't think the boolean conversion operator is
> "interfering" with the implicit conversion to T. Rather I think each is
> an instance of "implicit conversion", and implicit conversions just
> don't work well with templates in general, in my experience.
It does interfere with the implicit conversion to T. Consider this:
optional<bool> o;
if (o)
foo(o);
If you choose implicit conversion to T (which is debatable), the
implicit conversion to (safe)bool will have to go:
optional<bool> o;
if (o != none)
foo(o);
But I see now that you are against implicit conversions, in general.
Fair enough. FWIW, I never had, nor seen, any complaints about
reference_wrapper<T>, which incidentally, has an implicit conversion
to T. In fact, I find the implicit conversion very useful.
Anyway... at the very least, I wish this is possible:
optional<bool> o;
if (o)
foo(o.get());
But no, here too, we should write:
optional<bool> o;
if (o)
foo(*o.get());
Which goes against existing practice in boost. See reference_wrapper::get,
tuple::get, variant::get, etc.
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
