Re: Proposal: statefull objects

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-20 11:51:10

>   From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
[...]
>This is a discriminated union, like 'any'. The only difference is that 'any'
>accepts any type + void, while your proposed class accepts only T or void.
>
>People that program in discriminated-union-capable languages would like your
>proposal. :-) Do you think that optional<T> would be a better name?

'optional' would be my preferred name as well. IIRC, Barton & Nackman
called such a type 'Fallible'.

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     mobile: [phone]
  http://www.curbralan.com        fax:    [phone]
  Curbralan: Consultancy + Training + Development + Review
____________________________________________________________