Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-18 15:24:50

On 18 November 2014 01:16, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> >
> >>  I will ad that I believe Dr BS don't like dynamic visitation, but here
> > we are doing pattern matching on types, isn't it?
>
>
> For a while I assumed exactly that, but he actually specifically voiced
> that he does not like visitation on variant and thinks of it as a hack.
> It's sad :/
>

FWIW:  I think he is (a) correct, but (b) we have nothing better to replace
it, so we still need it.

> On the other hand, safe_optional and optional would basically be two
> templates that have identical implementation with just different
> interfaces. If you can say objective things about one being safer, and all
> else is equal, then it should be THE library and the old optional should be
> deprecated. I don't think it's worth having two libraries when they are so
> similar.
>

+1.  Optional is a vocabulary type; it shouldn't have two different
spellings and work in two different ways.
-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  [phone]