On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>wrote:
On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:18 AM, Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com> wrote:
On 13 December 2012 01:05, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how this is better than optional<T&>, sorry. Your Safe wrapper could have been written around optional with the same success, and using lambdas or other function objects to work with references seem overcomplicated to me.
+1
optional<int&> si(temp) if (si) std::cout << *si << std::endl;
Or even:
int* pi(&temp); if (pi) std::cout << *pi << std::endl;
While I mostly agree with you and Andrey, neither alternative addresses
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Rob Stewart <robertstewart@comcast.net> wrote: the OP's desire to force the null check by virtue of using the wrapper type. Using optional comes close, as there will be an exception, IIRC.
An assert. Still, I would prefer optional or pointer in this case as the code looks clearer.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Thank you all for your responses. The idea is to avoid dereferencing a null reference, enforced by the compiler (type safe). optional<T&> not meet this purpose. I'm thinking of a proposal involving certain changes in the core language. But for now, I thought that this simple tool class library can help (Obviously, I need to think of all possible uses). Thanks and regards, Fernando Pelliccioni.