Is there a particular reason why this compiler complains about the conversion whereas the others are fine with it? Would you consider making this change to support this compiler?
I'm happy to make a change that supports more compilers. Thanks for
Frank Laub wrote: trying
it out on Borland. I'll have an update soon.
Actually, this is not about supporting more compilers - this about fixing a bug. Putting 'return false' there is a bug, plain and simple, and 'return optional()' is the right thing to do, whether we care about more compilers support or not...
I hadn't realized that this was an improper usage of optional. I returned 'false' because it felt like a 'natural' thing to return as that of a failure. Because the compiler and my tests showed this to work, I figured optional had a special bool constructor or something. I've noticed others use a 'none' type. I suppose the default ctor is the preferred way? Thanks for the heads up. -Frank