From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-10 16:30:24
"Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]>
>> optional<> is trying to model using C++ a concept that
>> it is not really covered by the language, that of uninitialzed values.
>> It uses pointer semantics *just* because pointers are the only sort of
>> C++ objects which has a clear uninitialized state.
> Probably a dumb question but allow me to ask anyway:
> Wouldn't a more generic variant<T0, T1...TN> class do what the
> optional is trying to do? I feel that optional<T> is just a variant<T, nil_t>
> in disguise. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Someone once said that if a theorem in Physics involves numbers other
than zero, 1, or infinity, it's lacking in purity.
optional captures the zero/one distinction, which, as its analogy to
pointers makes clear, is a very useful one. A type which can contain
any number of different types would have a much more complicated
interface. Maybe it's just a different library?
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk