Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-19 16:08:35
On 19 November 2014 13:42, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
> I think you're taking it too negatively.
Perhaps. Maybe it's just the scars from trying to get optional into C++14.
Whenever expected or variant gets discussed in committee, the question of
"Do we still need optional?" gets raised. The answer in favor of optional
is yes because it has a much better interface. If the interface is in
flux, well, that argument isn't very compelling.
While I will continue to vote strongly in favor of adding optional to
C++17, I might not participate in the battles to help make that happen,
since I am far more interested in forward progress than churn for churn's
sake. But that is just me.
-- 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