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

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 13:14:01

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:uzmpgktlc.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> 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 said, moral
> positions count when they are connected to votes in the committee, 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.

Agreed. And a good way to do that is to produce an updated version of the 
proposal with several use cases showing actual code using both interfaces, 
and pointing out exactly how the pointer interface is superior.

--Beman

BTW, and updated proposal needs to have a new document number.