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

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-13 11:51:53

Beman Dawes wrote:
> "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.
OK.
I'll do that.

Best

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