Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-30 17:43:21
Niall Douglas wrote:
> Do you accept that the static checked and runtime checked varieties are
> orthogonal user bases? There is a camp of users who strongly prefer no
> runtime overhead and static checking.
Why are their needs not served by value_if?
auto r = function();
if( auto* p = r.value_if() )
// use *p
// no runtime overhead on using *p
// static checkers know use of *p implies p != nullptr
Between this pattern and using `assert( r.has_value() )` directly to advise
the static checker, are we not covered?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk