Vicente Botet wrote
... Following your reasoning, I will suggest to remove the implicit construction from T to optional <T> and/or remove the operator<(optional <T> , optional<>). If we can not live without them, we could always try to do whatever is better.
Vicente, you are not serious, right?.. It is just that you did not like/agree with my "reasoning" and, so you suggested something unreasonable (IMO) and presented it as a "consequence" of my "reasoning" just to indicate how ridiculous mine was... Was that the idea?... Or I am misunderstanding you post? I cannot live without implicit T to optional<T> and prohibiting it will break tonnes of my code and project code and Fernando Cacciola's code (if I remember our similar discussions years ago)... and it'll break all that code *now*... no need to wait and see... and "selling" optional<T> without implicit T to optional<T> will be real hard... in my neck of the woods anyway. -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/optional-operator-optional-T-T-is-it-wron... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.