Subject: Re: [boost] [optional_io] InputStreamable refinement
From: Ilya Sokolov (ilyasokol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-03 11:26:38
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> Or are you saying that, since supporting such a requirement is not
> entirely possible since in the end is up to T, it isn't worth doing the
> best optional<T> itself can?
I think so. (We have Boost.Serialization for that)
> I personally never ever needed to extract an optional<T> where a bare T
> (instead of an optional<T>) was inserted, so the current semantics just
> worked for me.
How are you using operator>> with optional<T>? I can't imagine any
common use case other than lexical_cast.
> So, let me step back a bit...
>
> Why do you (Andrew and you Alexander) need this?
>
> With the current implementation you can certainly correctly extract the
> correct output provided the stream was inserted an optional<T>, subject
> of course to the details of T (as exposed in your counter-example).
Btw, the magic space and '--' string is not documented.
> Why isn't this enough practically speaking rather than theoretically?
The current semantics is useless for me.