Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-24 12:49:38

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:16 AM, 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 :/
>

He presented an interesting switch-like matching (both values and
types) mechanism at the last standards committee.
But until we get it, we need *something*.

Tony