On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Rob Stewart <robertstewart@comcast.net> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:18 AM, Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com> wrote:
On 13 December 2012 01:05, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how this is better than optional<T&>, sorry. Your Safe wrapper could have been written around optional with the same success, and using lambdas or other function objects to work with references seem overcomplicated to me.
+1
optional<int&> si(temp) if (si) std::cout << *si << std::endl;
Or even:
int* pi(&temp); if (pi) std::cout << *pi << std::endl;
While I mostly agree with you and Andrey, neither alternative addresses the OP's desire to force the null check by virtue of using the wrapper type. Using optional comes close, as there will be an exception, IIRC.
An assert. Still, I would prefer optional or pointer in this case as the code looks clearer.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Thank you all for your responses. The idea is to avoid dereferencing a null reference, enforced by the compiler (type safe). optional<T&> not meet this purpose. I'm thinking of a proposal involving certain changes in the core language. But for now, I thought that this simple tool class library can help (Obviously, I need to think of all possible uses). Thanks and regards, Fernando Pelliccioni.