Re: [boost] Deterimining interest in: Optional Polymorphic Value object with Small Object optimization

From: Corrado Zoccolo (czoccolo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-04 04:29:41

On 11/2/07, shunsuke <pstade.mb_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> So, why not nonnullable_poly(or something).
> boost::any and boost::function are nullable but
> those names don't have "optional_" prefix.

The naming to adopt is always the more debated part in reviews.
If I get chance to write the documentation and ask for formal review, we can
bring this up within the review, and see what scheme is preferred by the
majority of the boosters.
For me, both schemes are fine, as long as we provide the functionality of
both non-nullable and optional poly.

Thanks,
Corrado

Regards,
>
> --
> Shunsuke Sogame
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
dott. Corrado Zoccolo                          mailto:zoccolo_at_[hidden]
PhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The self-confidence of a warrior is not the self-confidence of the average
man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls
that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and
calls that humbleness.
                               Tales of Power - C. Castaneda