From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 16:13:26
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]>
> > And my point, again, is that you can easily add an *easier* API
> > that does exactly like your optional API *over* the variant. My
> > concern is primarily about redundancy of code. I don't see any
> > reason why the optional and the variant can't share the same
> > underlying infrastructure.
> You just meant that optional<>, with a given interface, could be implemented
> on top of variant_t<T,nil_t>?
> Yes, definitely.
> In fact, if optional<> is accepted, when we have variant<>, it is quite
> likely that I do just that.
You might have missed it but I actually voted "yes" for acceptance.
I have needs for the variant (Hey variant guys where are you?)
and your optional class might fill that need now. I'm sure Doug
knows why :-)
As an aside, you might want to consider continuing and actually
implementing a variant (at least to awaken the variant guys, or
maybe not if you get there first). I think that will be a logical next-step
Joel de Guzman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk