<Schalk_Cronje@NAI.com> escribió en el mensaje news:2E22904642859A40AF5E1CA1597EBB1F12FF25@devexmb1.corp.nai.org...
Was it intentional to include none_t.hpp instead of none.hpp in boost/optional.hpp? Otherwise it seems that the user must resort to including boost/detail/none.hpp
Well, yes, it was. The reason is that the Borland compiler (at least BCB6) refuses to create a precompiled header with data on it, not even pointer constants. Therefore, none.hpp cannot be in a precompiled header (PCH); and any header including it won't be allowed in a PCH. As I see optional<> as ubiquitous, I decoupled none.hpp from it so that Optional users (specially for BCB) can put it in a PCH. The drawback is that users wanting to use "none" must include it separately. Now, OTOH, I think "none.hpp" should leave in the root directory and not on detail. I initially put it there but some people argued that it was Optional specific, but since there is no /optional subdir I moved it into /detail Fernando Cacciola SciSoft