Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:40:44 -0300, Fernando Cacciola <fernando_cacciola@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now we're talking ;)
Indeed you couldn't respond earlier :-P
[...]
In fact, with this solution there is no need to separate none_t from none (need that arose only from the fact that 'none' caused problems in precompiled headers in borland -at least- but none_t had to be defined anyway)
I was curious to know if the problem still existed without the unnamed namespace, but we'll probably wonder for the eternity :-)
I know it did and I think it still does. Borland refuses to put data in a precompiled header no matter what namespace (unnamed or not) you put it.
Fernando, can we also decide if this is some useful toy we want to share with the lib world or an implementation detail?
I don't have a strong opinion or problem with regarding this as an implementation detail, but I do need to find a nice solution, like the one Anthony just proposed. Whether this deserves to be at the root level is independent from the solution. Anyway, I think none is useful outside optional<>, specifically, for variant<>, tuple<> and even any. I take you disagree. Can you explain why? Fernando