Hi. I checked out the optional library and found it to be of great value. I have, however, a few small suggested improvements (and no, I'm not talking about the pointer/container/discriminated-union semantics debate; I read this discussion in the mail archives and I also saw the resulted library and I'm very happy with what came of it). I'm talking about the detail::none_t part. Should it really be in the detail namespace? Isn't that a little weird? The detail namespace should be "forbidden area" for the users, yet here they are offered to write code like my_optional = boost::detail::none_t(); One might argue that there's the 'none' global variable which will make the code look like my_optional = boost::none; which looks much better. I agree that it looks much better, but it still doesn't make the previous way of thinking (crating a temporary none_t instance) illegal or unsupported. It is unsupported now. And while we're at the global none variable, I have to say that the reason I first tried the temporary-none_t-instance way, is that I didn't know of 'none'. The documentation is very poor on this subject. It's only mentioned in one place in a short, unexplained sentence, and it's in the "Detailed Semantics" section which no one ever bothers to read anyway. In addition to improving the docs, I'd say that it's even better to include the boost/none.hpp header with optional.hpp so it could be easily found and reached. As I understood, the reason why this is not done now, is because some compilers (such as Borland's) have troubles with initialized data and pre-compiled headers. If this is truely the case, then I think it's easily solved. Include as follows: #ifndef BOOST_OPTIONAL_DISCLUDE_NONE #include <boost/none.hpp> #endif while the BOOST_OPTIONAL_DISCLUDE_NONE flag can be set either by the user, or automatically if a troublesome compiler is detected. If Boost.Config could automatically detect and set a BOOST_NO_INITIALIZED_DATA flag, then the optional library is left with fairly simple code. To summarize, I suggest: 1. Lift none_t from detail to boost. 2. Improve docs wrt 'none' global instance. 3. Include none.hpp with optional unless the user/compiler dislikes it. Makes any sense? Yuval