Re: [boost] compact_optional -- prompting interest

28 Sep 2015


      2015-09-26 22:12 GMT+02:00 Nevin Liber :
...
On 26 September 2015 at 11:52, Andrzej Krzemienski 
wrote:
...
I am not particularly tied to name compact_optional.
I'm strongly against the word "optional" appearing the name, for the
following reasons:
- optional<int> allows me to use every single value that can be stored
   in an int.  This doesn't.
   - optional<string> allows one to shorten the lifetime of the string it
   holds.  This doesn't.
   - optional<T> has a nothrow default constructor.  This doesn't.
At best, it resembles optional only superficially.  Please give it a
different name.
Acknowledged.

Regards,
&rzej