5 Aug
2006
5 Aug
'06
3:06 p.m.
Hi Sascha,
[...] But when i store values where the type has an inline NaT value (for example NULL pointers) i cannot and need not use optional.
Can you explain why you cannot use optional<>? I definitely see that you don't need it, but for the sake of genericity I just wouldn't mind the fact that some types do have an identifiable null value and use optional<> all along. Fernando Cacciola SciSoft http://fcacciola.50webs.com/