Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional

Le 19/11/14 22:08, Nevin Liber a écrit :

On 19 November 2014 13:42, Andrey Semashev wrote:

...

I think you're taking it too negatively.

Perhaps. Maybe it's just the scars from trying to get optional into C++14.

Whenever expected or variant gets discussed in committee, the question of "Do we still need optional?" gets raised. The answer in favor of optional is yes because it has a much better interface. If the interface is in flux, well, that argument isn't very compelling.

While I will continue to vote strongly in favor of adding optional to C++17, I might not participate in the battles to help make that happen, since I am far more interested in forward progress than churn for churn's sake. But that is just me.

I don't master English, what do you mean by "churn for churn's sake "? I believe that all of us think that it is better to have the current std::experimental::optional in C++17 than not having it at all. You seam to state that experimenting with other interfaces goes against this primary goal. I just hope you are not right, but who knows ... Vicente