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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk