26 Sep
2015
26 Sep
'15
8:12 p.m.
On 26 September 2015 at 11:52, Andrzej Krzemienski
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. -- Nevin ":-)" Liber mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com (847) 691-1404