Sascha Krissler <boost-dev@k.datenfreihafen.de> writes:
That's what i am doing right now. The messy interface differences could be smoothed out by optional<>.
It's not optional's job to make that decision. 0 is a valid pointer value, and it's not the same thing as "no pointer value."
If i had to implement all the interface of OptionalPointee again that would be a lot of duplication whether changing optional would be a couple of mpl::if_. Well i will not wait for a new release of boost to solve my poblem anyway it is a suggestion to improve the genericity of the lib.
Unfortunately, it would reduce genericity. Suddenly some types have special values that can't be represented distinctly from an empty optional. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com