Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-30 21:48:04
Le 30/05/2017 Ã 23:28, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost a Ã©crit :
> 2017-05-30 18:11 GMT+02:00 Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
>> Let's first see if people who favor a narrow interface are satisfied with
>> value_if, which for me is a very good compromise. Once you have a raw
>> pointer, things are as narrow as it gets.
Sorry Peter I don't receive your mails.
value_if has a wide contract. I don't have nothing agains it.
value_if It can be constructed from has_value and operator* (call it
deref if you prefer).
So the minimal interface is not value_if. When I kno wthat I have a
value in I don't want to use value_if and dereference the obtained pointer.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk