Talk:cpp/utility/optional/optional

This doesn't make sense to me. Should it be ?

gubbins (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (PST)
 * is the template parameter of . --D41D8CD98F (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2017 (PST)
 * We could replace with  (or even with ), but I guess that wouldn't make it clearer. --D41D8CD98F (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2017 (PST)


 * Why not just say ? I can't really see what the part adds except for confusion. It would be better to describe the behaviour in the full constructor descriptions - like constructor 3 for std, for example. gubbins (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2017 (PST)


 * would be wrong because it would be a rather different constructor. was added to the standard by LWG 2756 which describes its purpose. if you believe it is not useful.. https://isocpp.org/std/submit-issue  --Cubbi (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2017 (PST)
 * A note may help, though. A more radical idea is a global stylistic change to say in the title instead (i.e., include the template parameters), so that it's clear what  is. T. Canens (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2017 (PST)


 * I agree with the remark above. The document you linked does not refer to in isolation; it is within a declaration of . So in that setting, the meaning of T is explicit. To readers of this page I do not think it is very clear that T is the template parameter of the optional template itself. gubbins (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2017 (PST)


 * How about in this case? --Cubbi (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2017 (PST)


 * Yes I think would be better than the current version - probably a good change for now. However I quite like the idea of using  as the title - what do you think about that? gubbins (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (PST)


 * it may get harder elsewhere.. .. actually that might still fit in a title, though we might want to abbreviate "Allocator" for that. --Cubbi (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2017 (PST)


 * Yeah true, although might work too? gubbins (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2017 (PDT)


 * I replaced T with value_type on the page - I think it's better... gubbins (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2017 (PDT)

explicit constructors
Why is explicit in a comment? It's not in a comment here: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/vector 2620:0:1000:8000:ACAE:4A00:D7A8:BA35 17:37, 12 February 2018 (PST)
 * here it is conditionally-explicit, the description below the declaration explains when it is and when it isn't. Perhaps we should use a different presentation, like --Cubbi (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2018 (PST)
 * I don't want to hide conditionally-explicit in the small print. But maybe we can make the meaning more obvious than the we have so far. T. Canens (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2018 (PST)

The condition for the 7th ctor
I believe the condition for the 7th ctor should be (no double ampersand after ), though I'm not sure.

2A02:6B8:0:40C:99CD:2BDB:50CA:440 08:41, 29 October 2018 (PDT)
 * The two are equivalent in this case, and the standard has the &&. T. Canens (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2018 (PDT)