Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-18 04:36:45
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski
> 2014-11-18 8:00 GMT+01:00 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>:
>> So, basically, the proposal is to add visitation API, am I correct?
> And to remove operator* and get() and value() and get_pointer() - anything
> that could cause UB. And remove implicit conversion from T
>> that case why not add it to the regular optional?
>> IMHO, in order to introduce an alternative component, there should be
>> significant and incompatible design and interface differences between
>> the two. So far I don't see the need for such differences.
> As explained above: serious backwards incompatibility. Unacceptable by
> many, including myself.
I see. In this case I agree in that the original optional should
remain the same. However, I don't see much point in such a restricted
subset of the current optional. Just imagining myself using
functions/lambdas instead of get() and similar code makes me dizzy.
IMO, visitation API could be useful for generic code (i.e. which
already uses boost::visit or similar facility and is as such
compatible with boost::variant). It's not a direct replacement for
extraction API (i.e. getters), it's just too cumbersome. I had
realized this when I was working on Boost.Log and ended up with both
interfaces to attribute values - each has its strong and weak sides
and is more useful than the other in some cases.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk