"Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Fernando Cacciola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You did sell the idea that it can be a union, but I held to the idea that > > it can just as well be considered as *REALLY REALLY REALLY* > > nothing else but a container that has a T or is empty. > > > > I agree there is nothing wrong with the union model, but I don't see > > why is it better than the other. > > In fear that this is becoming non-productive and as I've already mentioned > that I respect whatever you decide on (I'm satisfied with the optional regardless > of its quirks), this will be my final post on the issue. > > The problem, the way I see it, is that optional mixes at least 3 concepts > all at once. First, the concept of variant<T, nil>, second is the concept > of optional as a container and third (I know you disagree, but) pointer- > like concept. I understand that the optional started out with the pointer- > like concept and moved on to embrace other concepts to satisfy the > needs of people who want some features which do not fit quite nicely > with the pointer-like concept (e.g. == and != and soon direct assignment?). > Point taken. There's no need to argue anymore. I guess significantly more feedback will weight the balance.
Thanks for all your comments! It might look the other way around but they were very helpful. Best regards, Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
