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

From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-15 22:36:42

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje
news:u3cozs3l8.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "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
> becausewe think it might confuse people.
>
I'm glad to see this since I was just trying to make my mind on this as
I was answering William post.

Fernando Cacciola