20 Aug
2014
20 Aug
'14
6:30 a.m.
On 20/08/2014 9:54 AM, Gavin Lambert wrote:
If you made your type implicitly convertible to optional and back, that ought to make everybody happy. :) (Well, except maybe the folks who hate implicit conversions, but they're never happy.)
I love implicit conversions. I love implicitly converting const char* to std::string. I love implicitly converting std::string to boost::optionalstd::string. So imagine my heartache when they told me I couldn't implicitly convert const char* to boost::optional<string>. What, you mean I can't really use const char * /wherever/ I can use std::string? I feel that I'm in for more tears if we have an implicit conversion from boost::optional to something else. --- Michael