Hi Thomas, Thomas Witt wrote:
Jeffrey Faust wrote:
Is there anybody out there besides me that would find this useful?
I can't speek to the solution itself but I would find it very useful. It's a productivity issue. In the end the gains of using optional have to be weighed against its drawbacks. Lack of inspectability is a big minus. It goes so far that it limits adoption here.
I'm glad I'm not alone.
With respect to this being rather a debugger problem: I've entertained that thought for a moment but then I realized I can't stop writing code while the debugger is getting fixed. In practice it's a library issue.
With all the feedback I've gotten, I want to abandon my proposed approach and try something else. Most importantly, the debugger version has to be a different type to avoid debug/release compatability issues. Jeff Faust