This article [1] is really an argument that the standard committee screwed up and should have allowed std::optional<foo&> in C++-17, as boost::optional does. For our purposes it's an excellent explanation of why using boost::optional<foo&> can help us write safer and more easily understood code when we use it to replace foo*.
Regards, John Ralls [1] http://tristanbrindle.com/posts/optional-references _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
