Details
Details
- Reviewers
mclow.lists ldionne EricWF
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
2750 nothing to do because std::experimental::optional no longer exists.
This is correct, however the current wording for optional::optional(U&&) does NOT have a condition like !std::is_same<T, std::remove_reference_t<U>>::value. Was it "forgotten" when we Standardized std::optional? If so, then maybe we need to create a LWG issue.
Comment Actions
@ldionne I talked with @mclow.lists about this because I was wondering the same thing. He is looking into it.
It seems like an odd constraint to have because there is no other constructor which would allow for constructing an optional<T> with a T.