----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Boost mailing list'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:42 PM Subject: RE: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
> From: Fernando Cacciola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > >> * I'm unsure about the presence of "initialized()". On the one hand, the > >> duplication in features (compared to "get/peek() == 0") is something I > >> think designs should generally avoid. On the other hand, this name is > >> more meaningful for what precisely "get/peek() == 0" signifies. I guess > >> I'm +0 on this one. > >> > >To be honest, I dislike it too :-) > >But some people found the alternative spellings ugly, > >so I figured that a member function would make them happy. > > How about using !empty() instead of initialized() ? > The problem William was raising is not about the particular name of the member-function: empty() or initialized(); but about having a(nother) member-function to do a job which is already covered by other parts of the interface. (note that there is no empty() member function in optional<>) OTOH, whether to have 'empty' or 'initialized'... well, I prefer 'initialized', but that's mainly a matter of personal taste I think. Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
