Why can't i use nullptr instead of nullopt? And why {} translates like nullopt?

Now that std::experimental::optional has been accepted (or is about to be accepted), I wonder what is the overhead and the consequences on the assembly generated when the inner value is get by the ...

I have had runtime error, when replaced some code by using std::optional: Old code: T getValue(); ... const auto& value = getValue(); value.get(); New code: std::optional<T> getValue...

std::optional::value() has the following two overloads constexpr T& value() &; constexpr const T & value() const &; constexpr T&& value() &&; constexpr const T&amp...

I am trying to use std::optional but my code raise error. I have specified #include <experimental/optional> and compiler options are -std=c++1z, -lc++experimental. How to use std::experiment...

The reasoning of std::optional is made by saying that it may or may not contain a value. Hence, it saves us the effort of constructing a, probably, big object, if we don't need it. For example, a...

I tried to compile the following program with different compilers (including gcc 6.1) : #include <optional> int main() { std::optional<int> o1; } Output is main.cpp:1:20: fatal e...