"Rob Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > From: David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:29:23 -0500
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b3
> > Reply-To: Boost mailing list <[EMAI
From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> David Abrahams said:
> > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Augustus Saunders said:
> >
> >> I wouldn't be overly concerned. I'd find this to be a programmer
> >> error (passing a type to a template that doesn't meet the template's
>
David Abrahams said:
> "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Augustus Saunders said:
>
>> I wouldn't be overly concerned. I'd find this to be a programmer
>> error (passing a type to a template that doesn't meet the template's
>> requirements). Concept checking libraries can even b
"William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Augustus Saunders said:
> I wouldn't be overly concerned. I'd find this to be a programmer error
> (passing a type to a template that doesn't meet the template's
> requirements). Concept checking libraries can even be employed to insure
> such mi
Augustus Saunders said:
> William Kempf wrote:
>>> Some people, mostly _me_, argued that this is not a good idea
>>> because code would change meaning if optional<> is replaced
>>> by a pointer.
>>
>>But it's going to change in any event, because optional<> _isn't_ a
> pointer.
>>
>>But in generic
Augustus Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> William Kempf wrote:
>>But in generic code you must follow the semantics of the concept,
>>and optional<> isn't useable when a SmartPointer concept is
>>required. Define the concept well enough, and optional<> becomes
>>useful in generic code.
I'
William Kempf wrote:
>> Some people, mostly _me_, argued that this is not a good idea
>> because code would change meaning if optional<> is replaced
>> by a pointer.
>
>But it's going to change in any event, because optional<> _isn't_ a
pointer.
>
>But in generic code you must follow the semantics
Fernando Cacciola said:
> "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Fernando Cacciola said:
>>
>> [snip William's comments about the interface with operator T&]
>>
> I agree with your comments about the interface with operato
"William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Fernando Cacciola said:
>
> [snip William's comments about the interface with operator T&]
>
I agree with your comments about the interface with operator T&.
I show it in the post, actuall
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Fernando Cacciola said:
> >
> >> However, and very unfortunately, this _requires_ the properly well
> >> defined relational operators to be
> Thanks to the clear arguments made by the reviewers, I see the picture a
lot
> more clear now.
> Specially the fact that optional<> is itself a container, or perhaps, a
> union of T and nil_t.
> But your previous post were you developed those concepts were very helpful
> as an argument to keep th
"Augustus Saunders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Fernando Cacciola wrote:
>
> >And pointers have historically been used to deal with optional
> >objects precisely because they model this concept.
>
> I think this is important, and so I want
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
008901c2a2a8$9d1af430$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:008901c2a2a8$9d1af430$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
13 matches
Mail list logo
