Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-18 02:16:24

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> I will ad that I believe Dr BS don't like dynamic visitation, but here
> we are doing pattern matching on types, isn't it?

For a while I assumed exactly that, but he actually specifically voiced
that he does not like visitation on variant and thinks of it as a hack.
It's sad :/

> @Matt I don't think we need to choose instead of the user. We have here
> two complementary interface to the same data, there is no one better than
> the other. Up to the user to choose the one more adapted to his needs.

I'm still not really sure I agree. I see no problem with things like
Boost.MSM and Boost.Statechart both being in Boost, as while they solve
many of the same problems they each have very clear advantages and
disadvantages. I'm actually very much in favor of stuff like that.

On the other hand, safe_optional and optional would basically be two
templates that have identical implementation with just different
interfaces. If you can say objective things about one being safer, and all
else is equal, then it should be THE library and the old optional should be
deprecated. I don't think it's worth having two libraries when they are so

-Matt Calabrese

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