Dave Gomboc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Right now I am questioning whether the >> pointer-like semantics is worth it to me. I would probably prefer that >> clients type more to test whether a value is initialized so that they >> can type less to call a function that takes an optional as a parameter >> when they have a value to pass in. Sorry if this has already been >> covered, but here my question is: Have you experimented with a variant >> of optional that drops the pointer-like semantics, allowing implicit >> construction and disallowing implicit safe-bool conversion, and if so >> what did you learn that made you favor the current set of tradeoffs? > > I've never been comfortable with the pointer-like semantics of optional. If > you don't need an industrial-strength solution like Fernando's, perhaps > something simple like the below would be sufficient? (Also, feel free to > suggest improvements.)
FWIW, I too am not happy with the pointer-like semantics of optional. I'd be very interested to know the pros and cons. Are there actual experiences without the pointer-like semantics? I honestly believe that optional should follow the "maybe" or "variant<T, none>" semantics. The concepts are very pure, yet, the pointer-like semantics uglifies it somewhat. << I thought I was the only one who find the pointer-like unlikeable so I kept my silence on the matter >> -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
