Re: [boost] [optional] Suggestion for adding an optional_number class

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Suggestion for adding an optional_number class
From: Sergey Mitsyn (svm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-25 13:46:22

On 21.07.2017 10:47, Viktor Sehr via Boost wrote:
> I'd like to make a suggestion for adding an optional class for number
> types, called optional_number, where the max value of the number type is
> utilized as the uninitalized value.
> 
> Differences compared to std::optional<int, float, enum etc>:
> *- No size overhead from the wrapped type*
> - Theoretically faster (althrough in practice probably negilble)
> - Can be assigned to any value except the max value
> - Operator-> is removed as it does not make sense for an integer
> 
> 
> Notes:
> - Throws if assigned the numeric_limits<T>::max
> - Also works with enums, using the underlying_type
> - The operator bool conversion is missing in the prototype implementation
> 
> Attaching a prototype implementation (currently for C++14).
> 
> 
> /Viktor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 

Hello,

FYI there was a proposal recently for optional with the same purpose; 
unfortunately, it went nowhere:

https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2015/09/225692.php

Though I think that a most valuable rationale for it is this special 
optional being a tool for wrapping legacy code or systems that already 
utilize special value idiom.

Also, throw on special value assignment is insane - it might be 
perfectly fine to pass special values to indicate something other than 
error - say, in a system it might be defined as a missing value (e.g. 
NaN meaning n/a). Or a completely different thing - special value as a 
non-error, everything else as an error; it may add usability to thin 
wrappers to legacy API.

--------
Mitsyn Sergey