Eric! You DA Man!
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
Eric Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Gomboc wrote:
> [snip]
>> I don't like get() because I cannot write x.get() when x is a POD. This
>> would mean I have to support nilable<T> and T with different code,
>> which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
>
> Why not overload boost::get again for optional? This would certainly improve
> consistency with variant. For instance:
>
> optional<T> opt;
> ...
> T& r = boost::get<T>(opt); // throws bad_get if opt empty
> T* p = boost::get<T>(&opt); // p is null if opt empty
>
> In the same line, we could make optional visitable:
>
> class my_visitor : public boost::static_visitor<> {
> void operator()(boost::empty) const
> {
> ...
> }
>
> void operator()(const T& operand) const
> {
> ...
> }
> };
>
> boost::apply_visitor( my_visitor(), opt );
>
> Support for visitation would also allow seamless integration with the
> typeswitch construct I'm working on:
>
> switch_(opt)
> = case_<boost::empty>( ... )
> = case_<T>( ... )
> ;
>
> I don't have experience with boost::optional, so I don't know how any of the
> above would require changes to its interface or concepts.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
