I see. In this case I agree in that the original optional should remain the same. However, I don't see much point in such a restricted subset of the current optional. Just imagining myself using functions/lambdas instead of get() and similar code makes me dizzy.
I sympathize with your opinion. Personally, I also prefer the current way of accessing the value. Yet, I see people complain that it is unsafe. It is my hypothesis that there exist a portion of users that just like the monadic interfaces along with the inconvenience that comes with it. This post is to confirm my hypothesis, and if it is the case, to satisfy the demand.
Another option I would like to see is for `optional` to implement a range. So instead of using a lambda, a `for` scope can be used. Paul -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/optional-Safe-optional-tp4669110p4669184.... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.