On 18 November 2014 01:16, Matt Calabrese
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I will ad that I believe Dr BS don't like dynamic visitation, but here we are doing pattern matching on types, isn't it?
For a while I assumed exactly that, but he actually specifically voiced that he does not like visitation on variant and thinks of it as a hack. It's sad :/
FWIW: I think he is (a) correct, but (b) we have nothing better to replace it, so we still need it.
On the other hand, safe_optional and optional would basically be two templates that have identical implementation with just different interfaces. If you can say objective things about one being safer, and all else is equal, then it should be THE library and the old optional should be deprecated. I don't think it's worth having two libraries when they are so similar.
+1. Optional is a vocabulary type; it shouldn't have two different spellings and work in two different ways. -- Nevin ":-)" Liber mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com (847) 691-1404