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

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-26 15:48:46

Le 26/11/14 12:00, Vladimir Batov a écrit :
> 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 will stop here, so that we can preserve boost::optional intact ;-)
>
>> ... 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?
>
>
No problem, I recognize that my description is not well ordered. I will 
try again in a new thread.

Best,
Vicente