Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Vladimir Batov (vb.mail.247_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-26 06:00:48

Vicente Botet wrote
> ... Were talking of the possibility of a new 
> safe_optional. I would like we explore how we would like to have this 
> new type.

I am not against any new types which prove to be useful... just do not call
it *_optional. Let your class stand on its own feet and be judged on its own
merit... instead of piggy-backing on "optional"... and confusing and
fragmenting "optional" user-base.  

> ... I'm looking on how all these conversions can be made safer.
> ...

OK, Vicente, my most humble apologies for snipping all the stuff you typed
that flew right over my head and made me feel stupid. I have to be brutally
honest I did not understand your "idea to state explicitly that you want a
explicit conversion but don't state to what" and your "implicit explicit
conversion thing". You obviously put a lot of thought into it but I
personally did not get *what problem* exactly you are trying to solve. I
personally do not feel there is a conversion-related problem that needs
fixing... On the other hand I do not know Haskell, so it may well be that I
do not know what I am missing. :-) I just hope that other people you'll
present your idea to will be smarter than me to appreciate it. Do you have
any links to slow-pace tutorial/explanation/justification of what you are
trying to propose that I could peruse without hurry?

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/optional-operator-optional-T-T-is-it-wrong-tp4669374p4669510.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.