[boost] Re: Optional, tie, and iterator_adaptor

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-30 17:20:22

Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> My main argument is that if those were allowed, you could write:
> 
> optional<int> opt ;
> opt = 1 ;
> int i = *opt ;
> 
> and the assymetry didn't look right to me.

I agree that this looks wrong. What about this syntax:

optional<int> opt;
*opt = 3;
int i = *opt;
opt->foo();

My feeling is, that if it's possible to implement it, than it's the 
right interface to go for. But you're the optional expert... ;)

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de