9 Oct
2006
9 Oct
'06
8:44 a.m.
Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval <at> yahoo.com> writes:
Nicola Musatti wrote: [...]
I think Jeff refers to objections that have been raised about using pointer-like syntax for things that are not pointers.
I have to second everyone who favors boost::optional. It's IMO absolutely the best way of handling null-allowed fields.
I think we need to distinguish between the concept of a type extending a base type to add the null value to its domain, whose usefullness is not in question as far as I know, and boost::optional's specific programming interface, which I expect is appreciated by some, but not by others. Cheers, Nicola Musatti