RE: [boost] Formal review: Optional library

From: Iain K.Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-12 14:28:16

> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: 12 December 2002 19:03
> 

>But it doesn't, really.  If you're going to have deep constness and
>deep assignment, the only thing remaining that makes it pointer-like
>is the operator*/operator-> interface.  At that point, it's just a
>very convenient shorthand for saying .front()/.begin() on a
>container-of-1. 

I understand. But, in general, I don't think users will find it
intutative to think of it as a container of one. Given that it
is only sytactic sugar I would probably prefer that they be left
undefined then, as I suspect that they will cause confusion. 

>??? it's not as though the function returns false randomly!

I never implied that it did!

>It tells you whether one optional is substitutable for another in the
>same expression (ignoring the address-of operator), which is the
>essence of equivalence in C++.

I understood that the first time it was said. I don't feel strongly
enough about this though to carry the argument on further. Just my
2p worth.

/ikh