Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-19 14:02:41
On 19 November 2014 02:37, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> We would have people
> experiment with an alternative and decide which they find better, and they
> could deliver their opinion to the Standardization committee.
This can be taken to mean that you, the proposer of optional for the
standard (and hence a domain expert), do not believe the design space has
been sufficiently explored and the committee might be better off waiting
and not putting std::experimental::optional into C++17.
-- 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