--On Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:04 AM -0400 gregod@[...].edu 
wrote:

>  On Wednesday 17 September 2003 10:57 am, Mat Marcus wrote:
> >    * Safe optional<bool>'s as tri-bools would be quite useful to
> >    me. I personally would sacrifice the convenience of testing
> > without using is_initialized() to gain tri-bools but I don't want
> > to cover old territory. Perhaps there's some other way of making
> > optional<bool>'s safer to use. What would you think of, say, using
> > enable_if (or better disable_if) to disable implicit bool
> > conversion and operator! for when T == bool (or when T already
> > is_convertible to bool)?
> >
> >  - Mat
> 
>  Why not use a real tribool? There's one in the sandbox.
> 
>  	Doug

Thanks, I will have a look. The above question still holds some 
interest for me though. That is, I would like to be able to "safely" 
use optional uniformly, including optional<bool>  even in the cases 
when I am not specifically trying to mimic a tribool.

 - Mat
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost