[boost] Re: Formal Review: Optional library

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 15:26:59

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Sankel" <camio_at_[hidden]>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: Formal Review: Optional library

> Hello,
>
>   I am very much in favor of such a library.
Great!

>  I've
> written this same library and have found it useful in
> several applications I've written.
>
It's nice to see that someone else (besides B&N AFAIK) have done this!

>   I have one suggestion though.  I suggest calling the
> class maybe instead of optional.  There are two
> reasons for this.
>
> 1. This idiom is widely used in other languages
> (haskell comes to mind) calling it maybe.
>
Good point... but being not familiar with those languages, "maybe" doesn't
sounds good to me :-)

> 2. Maybe well describes the idea that this particular
> variable might have a value.  As opposed to optional
> arguments to a function.  It is also shorter and more
> to the point IMO.
>
I agree is shorter, but I disagree is more to the point.

Anyway, I've came to get used to 'optional<>', so is very unlikely that I'll
change it.

Fernando Cacciola