RE: [boost] Formal review: Optional library

From: Glen Knowles (gknowles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-09 16:42:03

From: Fernando Cacciola [mailto:fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]]
>>
>> * I'm unsure about the presence of "initialized()".  On the one hand, the
>> duplication in features (compared to "get/peek() == 0") is something I
>> think designs should generally avoid.  On the other hand, this name is
>> more meaningful for what precisely "get/peek() == 0" signifies.  I guess
>> I'm +0 on this one.
>>
>To be honest, I dislike it too :-)
>But some people found the alternative spellings ugly,
>so I figured that a member function would make them happy.

How about using !empty() instead of initialized() ?

Just a thought,
Glen