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.
> 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
OK.. here we go.
-- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft http://fcacciola.50webs.com/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk