Boost logo

Boost :

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-10 10:10:18

On Oct 10, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Fernando Cacciola wrote:

> Hi people,
> Not only I wasn't there at the mettings but from Thuesday night I was
> undergoing an emergency gall bladder surgery so I coulnd't even
> respond the
> email.
> But I'm back home now... still recovering but I can sit in front of the
> notebook :)

Wow, I surely hope you recover fast.

>> Optional : Interested? Strong yes 9, weak yes 2, weak no 3, strong
>> no 0 Significant concerns about the interface:
>> Pointer interface.
> It figues. FWIW, I'll stand strong on this part of the interface...
> though
> I'm not sure how much my position can affect the final TR2 form.
>> Two ways of doing the same thing.
> Hmm, really? Did they gave examples?

I believe this refers to the pointer interface plus get().

>> Depends on nullptr - is there a backup plan.
> I could have proposed 'none' along Optional, in its own context, but
> that
> would duplicate much of nullptr... I didn't see the need for such
> duplication.
>> Dubious of use of references.
> Does this mean they don't see that as useful or that is not well
> supported?

I believe there was specific concern about reference rebinding under
optional<T&>. There were also several comments that went like: I use
optional all the time (gives use case), but I've never needed to use it
with reference types.

> General question: what shall I do from now on? Follow the discussions
> on
> comp.std.c++?

This is a good question, and I can only give an opinion (as opposed to
an authoritative answer).

You might explore a interface here on boost which did not have the
pointer interface, and which dropped reference support. Then perhaps
submit a follow on paper reflecting that experience. Said paper may
either modify your current proposal, or more fully support it.

And of course if you can make it to Berlin that is always a plus.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at