16 Nov
2012
16 Nov
'12
7:03 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka@gmail.com>wrote:
And may be we shall typedef nullptr_t as boost::none_t ?
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I'm not really sure that I'm against it either. I just wonder if there might be some weird situations where it could cause ambiguity or other problems. For instance, could this maybe cause a problem or questionable/unintuitive behavior with something like optional<int*>? Perhaps that's a weird case, but without some investigation I'm willing to bet there might be some more subtleties. -- -Matt Calabrese