On 18 November 2014 07:30, pfultz2
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.
+1. Note: To make this happen in std::experimental::optional might be a bit of a battle, as there are at least a few committee members who don't like this idea when I've floated it by them, but I'd certainly be willing to help push it along. Nevin :-) -- Nevin ":-)" Liber mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com (847) 691-1404