[boost] Re: [optional] new assignmet semantic and references

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-01 11:39:07

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje 
news:uzmxnnzi1.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> If I change the code now to use T's operator=(), assignment of 
>> optional<T&>
>> will have a _radically_ different semantics. A correct one, that's for 
>> sure,
>> but end user code might be fundamentally impacted.
>
> You might want to consider whether it makes sense to change the
> semantics only for non-reference types.
>
Yes, I considered that.. the problem I have is that I really don't like 
Optional rebinding references upon assignment... its ideal principle is to 
do exactly as the wrapped type does and differ only when uninitialized cases 
are involved. The current fix is a step towards that.

So I think I will fix it unless users speak up...
Though I will post this issue in the users list as well.

Btw, wouldn't it be very useful to have some sort of mechanism to allow 
users to register to boost or a particular boost library? that way we could 
broadcast a warning or a request to input feedback whenever we need to make 
a decision like this.

Fernando Cacciola