Subject: [boost] [Modularization][optional][functional] boost::none - what do we want it to be?
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-29 12:49:55
I know it may be premature to to think about removing every cycle in Boost,
but while looking at the cycle reports I found that at least one library is
using boost::none, for a purpose different than indicating an uninitialized
boost::optional. It is in Boost.Functional:
It uses none_t as a default type for a template type parameter Allocator.
My question is: what do we want boost::none_t to indicate, at least in
1. A value-semantic alternative to void, that anyone can use?
2. A tag indicating boost::optional<T> without a value?
The answer to this question dictates how we should untie the cycle. I know
it is too soon to care about small cycles right now, but my question is
more about "the principles".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk