"Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4AC4EDDE.5070606@providere-consulting.com...
it also makes life harder for those of us keen to hackery ;) because it makes the address of an optional different from the address of the actual object within the optional...
Um, you shouldn't rely on this anyway. The standard only makes guarantees about the addresses of sub-objects for POD types.
and, if i'm not mistaken, for class sub-objects that belong to the same "access section"...although, yes, the point is still moot from a standard-pure POV as boost::optional<> is free to use base classes for implementation and it in fact does... -- "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." Aldous Huxley