10 Feb
2007
10 Feb
'07
4:45 a.m.
On 2/9/07, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard@etu.u-bordeaux1.fr> wrote:
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
Why would it? T* and T& have very different semantics.
An optional T& has closer semantics to T* than a non-optional one.
Didn't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase?
The most important thing, however, is that it will be more efficient given the implementation of optional (optional could eventually fix that with a specialization).
That's not always the most important thing :-P best regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida