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

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-13 16:19:30

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Certainly, there ways to make the output of optional configurable. I am not
> sure manipulators would be my preference. An alternative would be the
> approach that Boost.Date_time has adopted: you set your preference per
> stream (plus one global setting) by means of locale mechanism. However,
> when it comes to proposing stuff in front of the ISO committee, there is
> one other factor, which I failed to mention yet. It is the "fragility" of
> the process. I am concerned that if anything turns out to be controversial,
> the whole Optional would be at risk of being rejected. This might be an
> exaggeration (I have never gone through the process of proposing something
> and then pushing it through), but Optional has already been proposed by
> Fernando (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1878.htm)
> and rejected; primarily for two things: operators -> and * and the
> semantics for optional reference assignment (see
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/10/95079.php). I would much like
> to avoid the situation where Optional (which I believe is very useful to
> wide variety of programmers) would be rejected because of one additional,
> however tiny, controversy of streaming operator.

I think the safe option is to not include it. Same for references.
What's the problem with the ptr interface? Seems fine with me.

-- 
Olaf