From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-02 22:28:13
"Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje news:002c01c371c8$1ec7bbf0$0100a8c0_at_godzilla...
> Fernando Cacciola <fcacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > You did sell the idea that it can be a union, but I held to the idea that
> > it can just as well be considered as *REALLY REALLY REALLY*
> > nothing else but a container that has a T or is empty.
> >
> > I agree there is nothing wrong with the union model, but I don't see
> > why is it better than the other.
>
> In fear that this is becoming non-productive and as I've already mentioned
> that I respect whatever you decide on (I'm satisfied with the optional regardless
> of its quirks), this will be my final post on the issue.
>
> The problem, the way I see it, is that optional mixes at least 3 concepts
> all at once. First, the concept of variant<T, nil>, second is the concept
> of optional as a container and third (I know you disagree, but) pointer-
> like concept. I understand that the optional started out with the pointer-
> like concept and moved on to embrace other concepts to satisfy the
> needs of people who want some features which do not fit quite nicely
> with the pointer-like concept (e.g. == and != and soon direct assignment?).
>
Point taken.
There's no need to argue anymore.
I guess significantly more feedback will weight the balance.
Thanks for all your comments!
It might look the other way around but they were very helpful.
Best regards,
Fernando Cacciola