Re: [boost] compact_optional -- prompting interest

Subject: Re: [boost] compact_optional -- prompting interest
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-26 16:12:21

On 26 September 2015 at 11:52, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> I am not particularly tied to name compact_optional.

I'm strongly against the word "optional" appearing the name, for the
following reasons:

   - optional<int> allows me to use every single value that can be stored
   in an int.  This doesn't.
   - optional<string> allows one to shorten the lifetime of the string it
   holds.  This doesn't.
   - optional<T> has a nothrow default constructor.  This doesn't.

At best, it resembles optional only superficially.  Please give it a
different name.
-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  [phone]