2 Jun
2012
2 Jun
'12
12:27 p.m.
Akira Takahashi wrote:
I took a look at the implementation of `regular` and found that it is implemented using `shared_pointer`.
What are the pros and cons of the `shared_pointer`-based implementation compared to an obvious `optional`-based implementation?
This is mistake implementation. I fixed implementation, boost::shared_ptr to boost::optional.
IIUC, the output of `regular` does not satisfy the Regular concept. Is this just an implementation deficiency or intentional behavior? If it is intentional, then the name `regular` might not be a good name... Regards, Michel