Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-19 17:32:53
Le 19/11/14 22:08, Nevin Liber a écrit :
> 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.
I don't master English, what do you mean by "churn for churn's sake "?
I believe that all of us think that it is better to have the current
std::experimental::optional in C++17 than not having it at all.
You seam to state that experimenting with other interfaces goes against
this primary goal. I just hope you are not right, but who knows ...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk