Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-18 15:24:50
On 18 November 2014 01:16, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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 :/
FWIW: I think he is (a) correct, but (b) we have nothing better to replace
it, so we still need it.
> 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
+1. Optional is a vocabulary type; it shouldn't have two different
spellings and work in two different ways.
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk