Hi Sascha,
> [...]
> But when i store values where the type has an
> inline NaT value (for example NULL pointers) i cannot and need not
> use optional.
Can you explain why you cannot use optional<>?
I definitely see that you don't need it, but for the sake of genericity I
just wouldn't mind the fact that some types do have an identifiable null
value and use optional<> all along.
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft
http://fcacciola.50webs.com/
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
