From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-02 22:28:13
"Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje news:002c01c371c8$1ec7bbf0$0100a8c0_at_godzilla...
> Fernando Cacciola <fcacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > You did sell the idea that it can be a union, but I held to the idea that
> > it can just as well be considered as *REALLY REALLY REALLY*
> > nothing else but a container that has a T or is empty.
> > I agree there is nothing wrong with the union model, but I don't see
> > why is it better than the other.
> In fear that this is becoming non-productive and as I've already mentioned
> that I respect whatever you decide on (I'm satisfied with the optional regardless
> of its quirks), this will be my final post on the issue.
> The problem, the way I see it, is that optional mixes at least 3 concepts
> all at once. First, the concept of variant<T, nil>, second is the concept
> of optional as a container and third (I know you disagree, but) pointer-
> like concept. I understand that the optional started out with the pointer-
> like concept and moved on to embrace other concepts to satisfy the
> needs of people who want some features which do not fit quite nicely
> with the pointer-like concept (e.g. == and != and soon direct assignment?).
There's no need to argue anymore.
I guess significantly more feedback will weight the balance.
Thanks for all your comments!
It might look the other way around but they were very helpful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk