Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-24 12:57:35

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 18 November 2014 07:30, pfultz2 <pfultz2_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I see. In this case I agree in that the original optional should
>> > > remain the same. However, I don't see much point in such a restricted
>> > > subset of the current optional. Just imagining myself using
>> > > functions/lambdas instead of get() and similar code makes me dizzy.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I sympathize with your opinion. Personally, I also prefer the current way
>> > of accessing the value. Yet, I see people complain that it is unsafe. It
>> > is
>> > my hypothesis that there exist a portion of users that just like the
>> > monadic interfaces along with the inconvenience that comes with it. This
>> > post is to confirm my hypothesis, and if it is the case, to satisfy the
>> > demand.
>> Another option I would like to see is for `optional` to implement a range.
> +1.

Why? It doesn't make a very useful/interesting range, does it?
(Unless you agree with Sean that everything should be range-able, ie
an int denotes a range of one int. Agreeing with Sean _is_ a strong
argument :-)

I think the range-for-loop lacks clarity here.
I worry that optional having "multi-paradigm" is harmful - since it
can't do all of them without compromise.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at