Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-24 13:07:44
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I see three scenarios:
> (1) Having two different interfaces reduces consensus, possibly to the
> point of having various different optionals remain in std::experimental
> (2) The new interface is ignored.
> (3) The new interface is so horrible that it increases consensus putting
> optional in C++17.
> IMO, (1) is the far more likely scenario.
(4) The new interface is so awesome it is accepted immediately and
replaces the other interface.
(5) the new and old interfaces are combined into awesomeness.
I see (4) as unlikely, and agree that (1) is more likely. (5) would
mean more churn, and running out of time.
So the decision to weigh is whether the new interface is likely to
result in awesomeness, and is it worth the risk.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk