Subject: Re: [boost] [optional_io] InputStreamable refinement
From: Ilya Sokolov (ilyasokol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-03 11:26:38
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> Or are you saying that, since supporting such a requirement is not
> entirely possible since in the end is up to T, it isn't worth doing the
> best optional<T> itself can?
I think so. (We have Boost.Serialization for that)
> I personally never ever needed to extract an optional<T> where a bare T
> (instead of an optional<T>) was inserted, so the current semantics just
> worked for me.
How are you using operator>> with optional<T>? I can't imagine any
common use case other than lexical_cast.
> So, let me step back a bit...
> Why do you (Andrew and you Alexander) need this?
> With the current implementation you can certainly correctly extract the
> correct output provided the stream was inserted an optional<T>, subject
> of course to the details of T (as exposed in your counter-example).
Btw, the magic space and '--' string is not documented.
> Why isn't this enough practically speaking rather than theoretically?
The current semantics is useless for me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk