Re: [optional] Feedback on the range interface for Boost.Optional

From: Дмитрий Архипов (grisumbras_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-16 10:07:08

вс, 15 сент. 2024 г. в 20:55, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]>:
> 2. Given that we have standard concepts that detect the range interface,
> `std::ranges::range` it is reasonable to assume that programmers use it in
> their code, also for controlling the overload resolution. Suddenly adding
> the range interface to optional is likely to break their code. (While any
> change whatsoever could theoretically break code, the current problem is
> more likely, because we are talking about the standardized concept.)

I am now realizing that this is in fact what will happen with
Boost.JSON's support for optionals. Luckily, the fix is trivial.
Although it will lead to a behaviour difference observable by users,
so may in turn lead to breakages (though, that's not very likely).
I guess, I should make that change before standard libraries start
shipping Range interface for std::optional.