Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-13 13:43:13

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Also, how would you implement it?

if (o1) os << *o1;

> what should an uninitialized optional
> print? Nothing? but how is having printed an uninitialized optional<int>
> different that not having printed anything?
> A question mark? but how would
> the following two be different:

They won't.

> If you propose to provide only output operation, then it looks like you
> want this for some sort of logging. But perhaps it is better to have some
> overloaded function toString() that converts all the types to strings.

Isn't that what << is for? :p

> Usually the string format that works for one program does not work for the
> other. And there appears to be no natural/intuitive way of representing any
> type (like optional) as text.

Right and that's not limited to optional.
Defining no IO seems ok too.

-- 
Olaf