Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-19 14:42:13
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 19 November 2014 02:37, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> We would have people
>> experiment with an alternative and decide which they find better, and they
>> could deliver their opinion to the Standardization committee.
>>
>
> This can be taken to mean that you, the proposer of optional for the
> standard (and hence a domain expert), do not believe the design space has
> been sufficiently explored and the committee might be better off waiting
> and not putting std::experimental::optional into C++17.
I think you're taking it too negatively. It's very good that Andrzej
is open to new ideas, especially since he's behind std::optional
proposal. Exploring new approaches doesn't mean that the current
optional is not well designed or not useful.