On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Robert Jones <robertgbjones@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Robert Jones < robertgbjones@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd prefer to see it return a boost::optional<T&>
What's the benefit?
Simply that the difficulty you're addressing is the possibility that
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Robert Jones <robertgbjones@gmail.com> wrote: there's
no value to return. Boost.optional expresses that directly.
Returning NULL works just as well. Using a raw pointer also allows you to write string* ptr = find_ptr(). Using Boost Optional would make that longer.
You'd have to write optional<string> s = find_ptr(); //Now misnamed of course!
boost::optional Shouldn't it be string&?
Indeed it should.
Either way, at some point you'd have to check the value was usable before using it.
Sure, but that can be done just as well with a pointer.
It can, optional is a generalisation of the no-value value offered by a possibly null pointer. The question is whether it should.
Boost Optional is targeted at functions that return by value.
Is it? I'd always rather thought it targeted at functions that may not necessarily return a value at all.
What's the best way to get this wrapper into Boost?
In detail I don't know. I'm pretty sure you need SVN write access at some point, unless someone applies a patch for you. If it's more than a patch I guess review of your code is required too. - Rob.