Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Hite, Christopher (Christopher.Hite_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-10 10:16:49

From: Domagoj Saric <domagoj.saric_at_[hidden]>
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the justification.

> IMO it seems that, yes, you are making the same mistake as Lucanus, thinking 
> about "The Universe" only as/through your POV of your personal problem domain:
> a) (optional models optionally holding an object) + (objects can be held by 
> value and by reference) = optional<T&> perfectly logical
I'm really not.  Give me a use case.  Do they make sense being passed as 
parameters/returns?  Do they make sense being stored?  

I just see some corner case of optional being turned into a replacement for regular 
pointer.

Why not just make dumb_ptr<T>?  If you want you can make it streamable and
give it clean construction.  

What is it you really want from optional<T&>?  Does anyone use it a lot?

Is it like std::vector<bool>?

> b) creating special cases (e.g. for T&) creates special problems in generic code
My point exactly.  I'd make it work for completeness but not bother to optimize.

Chris