Subject: Re: [boost] compact_optional -- prompting interest
From: work (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-26 18:46:19
> Nevin Liber wrote:
>> Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
>> I am not particularly tied to name compact_optional.
>
> I'm strongly against the word "optional" appearing the name,
> ...
> At best, it resembles optional only superficially...
So very true. Carving magic values out of the actual type has always (to
me) been a hack. That's what IMO boost::optional addresses perfectly.
Now I am somewhat uncomfortable that Andrzej is taking that route of
providing and legitimizing the hack which instead needs to be replaced
with boost::optional.
I might have not read the whole thread to the last letter but benefits
of that pseudo-optional are still questionable to me. The only one that
stood out for me was performance but I am far from convinced that
boost::optional introduces any noticeable run-time penalty. I suspect in
an application where boost::optional does introduce performance issues
there'll be many more serious bottlenecks and restrictions to consider.