2012/11/16 Matt Calabrese <rivorus@gmail.com>
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.
I also believe this may cause problems. See this discussion on not using nullptr for the proposed std::optional: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3406.html#rationale... Regards, &rzej