Re: [boost] [optional] std::tr2::optional

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] std::tr2::optional
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-20 03:43:27

On Saturday, November 19, 2011 18:26:25 Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> 
> Interesting. It looks like optional can be seen as a special container with
> the maximum size of 1, and then functions like clear() or empty() come as
> natural. On the other hand it can be seen as a pointer-like entity with
> value semantics, and then functions like reset() and literal nullptr come
> as natural.

Ok, I have no strong preference between reset() or clear() for making the 
optional empty. However, a explicit empty() member would be useful anyway.

  class MyClass
  {
    optional< int > m_x;

  public:
    bool has_x() const { return !m_x.empty(); }
  };

With the current interface I should have written has_x() in a more obscure 
way, like !!m_x or m_x.get_ptr() != NULL.

> I withdraw my suggestion to use nullptr. Function reset() would be a better
> choice. I also find reset() preferable to clear() because reset can be
> extended to accept parameters and the name does not become confusing;
> similarly to unique_ptr::reset().

I think, providing the reset() member with construction semantic is not a good 
idea because it would make imposible in-place default construction. There 
should be another method that would handle construction. In another post I 
suggested assign() but I'm happy if someone comes up with a better name.