Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-26 18:33:19
Le 26/11/14 09:24, Felix Uhl a Ã©crit :
> Vincente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> I hope it is clear now that I don't want to change optional but see what
>> the safer optional could be with the ongoing C++ proposals.
> Fair enough, different users want different behaviour,
> but how is optional not safe in any way?
Sorry, this should go to the Andzej's post on safe optional.
optional<T> is not less safe than T*. Any access using pointer like
operators need to ensure that the pre-condition is satified. I have no
problem with this probably valued types with unsafe interfaces. In some
application I could be interested in using some safe_optional<T> or
safe_ptr<T> that don't allows to get the optional value or the pointed
value, but just allow to visit the value when available, even if this
interface implies a less efficient implementation as a check would be
done on any access.
As you can see this safe issue is not specific to optional<T>, but to
any type that can probably store a value. Other types in this category
are smart pointers, expected, future, any, variant.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk