Re: [boost] Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 13:04:24

David Abrahams wrote:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> You might explore a interface here on boost which did not have the
>>> pointer interface,
>>
>> Over my dead body ;). That's the interface we use here at Meta, and
>> to say that our 'boost::optional' usage is extensive would be an
>> understatement. We don't care for 'get', though.
>
> Having not used optional extensively, I don't have a strong opinion on
> which interface might be better, but it's been my experience that
> objections to the pointer interface seem to be moral positions not
> backed up by any sound technical argumentation.

That's how I see it too.
IMO, the pointer interface is just too practical to be dropped in the name 
of "<add your adjetive here> programmer protection"

>  That said, moral
> positions count when they are connected to votes in the committee,

Very good point.

> so
> if there's a general consensus against the pointer interface there,
> the onus is on those in favor of it to produce sound argumentation in
> favor.

OK.. here we go.

-- 
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft
http://fcacciola.50webs.com/