Re: [boost] Re: Formal review: Optional library

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-15 10:29:23

"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Fernando Cacciola said:
>
>> However, and very unfortunately, this _requires_ the properly well
>> defined relational operators to be disallowed, because they can
>> effectively create practical problems if optional is mistaken for a
>> pointer and used, for example, to test for aliased equivalence as you do
>> when you compare pointers.
>
> So, just to keep pointer-like operations you're going to make the
> interface difficult to use for many valid use cases?

My feeling, FWIW, is that usefulness should trump mis-usability in
this case.  I'd rather see deep relational operators and a
pointer-like interface, than to see one or the other sacrificed just
because we think it might confuse people.  The arguments for each of
these interfaces has been made with sufficient force here to convince
me that we should keep them.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution