Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?

Vincente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

I hope it is clear now that I don't want to change optional but see what the safer optional could be with the ongoing C++ proposals.

Fair enough, different users want different behaviour, but how is optional not safe in any way? operator<(optional<T>, T) does not throwing any kinds of exceptions when operator<(T,T) doesn’t, does it? --- Felix Uhl