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

From: Steve Downey (sdowney_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-16 11:45:51

What sort of changes are you anticipating? Opting out of std::format range
formatting was one thing we discovered. Does boost jason have similar
things for ranges?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 6:07 AM Дмитрий Архипов via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>