Subject: Re: [boost] [optional_io] InputStreamable refinement
From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-04 07:48:05
Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> Fernando Cacciola <fernando.cacciola <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> Or are you saying that, since supporting such a requirement is not
>> entirely possible since in the end is up to T, it isn't worth doing the
>> best optional<T> itself can?
> Yes, that's what I'm saying except that I tend to disagree with the word
> "best" in this part of your sentence "doing the best optional<T> itself can" :)
> I believe, based on my reading of documentation, that my proposal is more
And as I said, based on experience (*), arguing on which one is more
correct would quickly wind up in an endless discussion as the number of
participants goes up. I could or could not agree with now, but only to
have someone else arguing for the current semantics in the near future.
So I'm much more interested on which one is more generally useful to the
Robert's reply seems to indicate that the serialization library doesn't
require the current semantics.. is that so? can this be verified?
Only if so we can discuss whether the current semantics should be replaced.
(*) This month Boost.Optional (well boost 1.30.0) is turning 6 :)
-- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting http://www.scisoft-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk