From a38ccb92b5bbe69049adfc4470f4ceda72617a14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fernando Cacciola Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:23:47 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fix couple of typos [SVN r19623] --- doc/optional.html | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/optional.html b/doc/optional.html index 4c8f531..ab2f5a4 100644 --- a/doc/optional.html +++ b/doc/optional.html @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ them. The problem resides in the shallow-copy of pointer semantics: if you need However, it is particularly important that optional<> objects are not mistaken by pointers, they are not. optional<> does not model a pointer. For instance, optional<> has not shallow-copy so does not alias: two different optionals - never refer to the same value (but my have equivalent values).
+ never refer to the same value (but may have equivalent values).
The difference between an optional<T> and a pointer must be kept in mind, particularly because the semantics of relational operators are different: since optional<T> is a value-wrapper, relational operators are deep: they compare optional values; @@ -818,7 +818,7 @@ Using optional<bool> can lead to subtle errors due to the implicit bool co void foo ( bool v ) ; void bar() { - optional<bool> v = try(); + optional<bool> v = Try(); // The following intended to pass the value of 'v' to foo(): foo(v);