From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-22 08:50:41
"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Anyway, I'm seriously considering putting in a default constructor
> since their don't really see serious downsides...
One thing to consider would be to use the new optional<> library to
handle these out-of-bounds cases. It doesn't sound like it's a
superior solution to me, but possibly worth considering.
--
David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution