Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-17 12:01:43
Andrzej Krzemienski wrote
> My idea is to provide another type wrapper, say safe_optional
> , that
> would choose different tradeoffs: prefer "safety" to some flexibility
> and/or efficiency. It would probably be part of Boost.Optional library as
> the implementation can be reused - only the interface would be changed.
> One downside of this solution is that we would have two libraries for
> nearly the same thing, which could "scatter" the community. There is a
> value for standardizing certain things and making them universal.
Can't this concern be addressed by making this an addition to the optional
So that safe_optional<T> would be an wrapper around optional<T> with
extra error checking?
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/optional-Safe-optional-tp4669110p4669135.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk