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
> 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
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: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/optional-Safe-optional-tp4669110p4669184.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