<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div><div>Was it a part of your idea to allow the `PossibleValueType` to be used in Optional-only syntax constructs like conditional binding? If so, do you see any advantages of such solution over `CustomOptionalConvertible`?</div><blockquote type="cite"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div dir="auto"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></span></blockquote></blockquote><br><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style><div>Yes that was the point of it. </div><div><br></div><div>The biggest difference is probably avoiding the need to wrap the value in an Optional. I'm not sure whether that would be a significant advantage or not but I believe it would avoid some copying and reference counting operations.</div><div><br></div><div>Matthew</div></body></html>