Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-19 14:42:13
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
I think you're taking it too negatively. It's very good that Andrzej
is open to new ideas, especially since he's behind std::optional
proposal. Exploring new approaches doesn't mean that the current
optional is not well designed or not useful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk