Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional

2014-11-19 22:08 GMT+01:00 Nevin Liber :

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.

Hi Nevin. I really appreciate what you are saying. You made me realize one thing I was not aware before. That an ordinary programmer expressing his ideas and opinions on a forum, can affect what gets and what does not get into the standard. I am not being sarcastic. Proposing Optional was a pain even for me, even though I am not exposed to the process. I appreciate your efforts in helping Optional get into the standard. I can also see why this thread can be seen as undermining the effort. I am pretty sure Optional will make it into the standard. Its advantage over Variant or Expected is that it is already there in a TS and that it proved useful for more than a decade. A working solution is better than a projected future solution. Back in around 2009, I was wondering why they are adding type traits when at the same time all the primitive concepts like CopyConstructible were being added. It looked like an unnecessary duplication. But their advantage was that they were real, unlike concepts. Best regards, &rzej