I feel that boost::optional has no sensible implementation for optional<void>, since there's absolutely nothing optional when returning void; When the function returns (if no exception is thrown, of course), the 'void value' is returned. Therefore, optional<void> can't be a boolean as it only has one possible 'value' which always exists. Having said that, I can see that such implementation would ease things on your end. However, I can't see a way to incorporate it into the existing boost::optional. I'll be happy to hear (read) more opinions, though. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Daniel Larimer <dlarimer@gmail.com> wrote:
I am writing some generic code and would like to handle "all values" the same way; however, I keep running into the problem of return void return types that need "special treatment". There is nothing I can do about it most of the time except template specialization.
That said, it would be helpful if boost::optional<void> could have some sensible default implementation where it acts more or less like a boolean. As it is, I will probably provide my own specialization of boost::optional to simplify my templates.
Any thoughts on this?
Dan _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Roman Kecher ... .. . http://cplusplus.co.il