Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] optional<optional<T>>
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-02 23:29:03

Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm defining an "optional" type for D's standard library modeled
>> similarly to Boost.optional. An interesting question came up - should
>> optional<optional<T>> fold itself into optional<T>, or is "double
>> optional" an interesting concept of its own?
>> I thought I'd ask here because by now there's a significant body of
>> experience with optional<T>. I perused the online documentation and
>> the forum and couldn't find information about that specific detail.
> We use boost.optional extensively in Boost.Spirit. IIRC, we collapse
> such things. Usually they occur in generic code. I see no real need
> for optional<optional<T>>. If there's a use for it, I too would like
> to hear it.

I use double optionals. Indeed, this appears in a generic code, but it's

The point is that I use the outer optional to in-place construct
objects, and it sometimes happens that the objects themselves are
optionals. Making them not optional would not be correct from the
application logic point of view.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at