4 Sep
2011
4 Sep
'11
3:29 a.m.
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:10:01 -0700, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Mostafa wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:13:30 -0700, Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com> wrote:
On 31 August 2011 16:13, Mostafa <mostafa_working_away@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ahh, I disagree with that. IMO, if maybereff was not bound at construction time, then it should always remain "uninitialized".
If the only way to make a non-empty optional<T&> is to construct it from a reference, then it couldn't be used, for example, as a function return type.
A non-empty maybereff can be bound at construction time via construction from a T& or from construction from a non-empty optional<T&>. The latter would allow it to be used as a function return type. Mostafa