Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: pfultz2 (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-18 08:30:37

> >
> > 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.
> >
> I sympathize with your opinion. Personally, I also prefer the current way
> of accessing the value. Yet, I see people complain that it is unsafe. It
> is
> my hypothesis that there exist a portion of users that just like the
> monadic interfaces along with the inconvenience that comes with it. This
> post is to confirm my hypothesis, and if it is the case, to satisfy the
> demand.

Another option I would like to see is for `optional` to implement a range.
instead of using a lambda, a `for` scope can be used.


View this message in context:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

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