Re: [boost] [optional] Making optional more debugger friendly

From: Jeffrey Faust (jefffaust_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-23 00:29:28

Hi Thomas,

Thomas Witt wrote:
> Jeffrey Faust wrote:
>>
>> Is there anybody out there besides me that would find this useful?
>
> I can't speek to the solution itself but I would find it very useful.  
> It's a productivity issue. In the end the gains of using optional
> have to be weighed against its drawbacks. Lack of inspectability is
> a big minus. It goes so far that it limits adoption here.

I'm glad I'm not alone.

> With respect to this being rather a debugger problem: I've entertained  
> that thought for a moment but then I realized I can't stop writing code
> while the debugger is getting fixed. In practice it's a library issue.

With all the feedback I've gotten, I want to abandon my proposed approach  
and try something else.  Most importantly, the debugger version has to be  
a different type to avoid debug/release compatability issues.

Jeff Faust