From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-11 12:16:32
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje
news:uoe9abw3k.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Jost, Andrew" <Andrew_Jost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>>From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Eelis van der Weegen
>>
>>>Jost, Andrew wrote:
>>>> I am curious if there is support for what I'm calling a "dual_state"
>>>> template class.
>>> From your description it sounds a lot like Boost.Optional. What are
>> the main differences?
>>>Eelis
>>
>> I'll admit I did not even pause at Boost.optional when I scanned the
>> library listing for previous work, a failure in my ability to connect
>> the description, "Discriminated-union wrapper for optional values," with
>> the concept I had in mind.
>
> Oh, you're right! That is a terrible one-line description, because
>
> a. It uses technical terms that many people probably don't know
> "discriminated union"
>
> b. optional doesn't really act like a union (in any way that matches
> my intuition)! I understand the theoretical connection, of
> course, but nobody is thinking that way when they read brief
> descriptions.
>
Very good point.
Right now I can think of
"A library to wrap and manipulate values can be be 'optional': that is,
(explicitely) uninitialized"
but that doesn't sound very inspired.
Any proposals?
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft