Andrzej Krzemienski wrote
My idea is to provide another type wrapper, say safe_optional <T> , that would choose different tradeoffs: prefer "safety" to some flexibility and/or efficiency. It would probably be part of Boost.Optional library as the implementation can be reused - only the interface would be changed.
One downside of this solution is that we would have two libraries for doing nearly the same thing, which could "scatter" the community. There is a value for standardizing certain things and making them universal.
Can't this concern be addressed by making this an addition to the optional library. So that safe_optional<T> would be an wrapper around optional<T> with extra error checking? Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/optional-Safe-optional-tp4669110p4669135.... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.