From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-19 12:39:32
"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
> All right. Now that we've settled on the conceptual validity of
> optional<T&>...
> Can we have it?
I don't see why not.
> Any idea about what to do with reference to reference problem?
What's the problem?
> I have to look at reference_wrapper() yet...
>
> What was the idea of: optional< exactly<T&> > ?
It's an ambiguity breaker: a way of specifying, when constructed with
a variant<T,T&>, that you want to get the T& and not the T.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com