On Saturday 01 October 2016 11:00:06 John Ralls wrote: > 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 > Good article. Thanks for the pointer!
Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
