Re: [boost] New Library Proposal: dual_state

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-10 09:22:57

Eelis van der Weegen <gmane_at_[hidden]> writes:

> So, in conclusion, the motivation for your dual_state is very valid, but 
> personally I think Boost.Optional is a more appropriate design.

IMO the "guaranteed object delivery" feature makes for a useful
specialization of the Boost.Optional design.  However, it would be
nice to have both; it's not an alternative to Boost.Optional.

There's a lot of resonance with the Boost.Parameter library in here.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com