Brian McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's been pointed out before, but to re-emphasize it: from a > type-theoretic standpoint, it is not the case that optional<T>-isa-T. > Rather T-isa-optional<T>. (Dog-isa-Animal because Animal has more > possible values.) I don't mind the suggestive conceptual > analogy/similarity, but when you get down to technicalities, the "isa" > relationship doesn't hold in the same direction you're saying (in your > first sentence above).
You are right of course! I stand corrected. In any case, it is still wrong. As Mat pointed out, it's the Rectangle/Square relationship once again. But I digress.... > As a final aside, I think much of this thread is degenerating into > Parkinson's Bicycle Shed[*], with respect to "is it a > pointer/container/X?" At this point, I think we know what set of > methods should be in the interface (indeed, there could be methods both > to return pointers and references; both to throw/fail-undefinedly, etc.) > and the names/documentation issues will fall out with more experience. > Just MO. I thought I made it perfectly clear that, although I disagree, I fully respect whatever preference Fernando has on the matter. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
