Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Marcel Raad (raad_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-24 09:35:54
Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Anyone else? Would you be affected if operator<(optional<T>, T) is
> poisoned?
> (but operator==(optional<T>, T) remains working)
I actually had a small bug in production code a few years ago after
changing an integral type to an optional because I hadn't expected this
behavior, so I think that would be good.