----- Original Message ----- From: "David Sankel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:16 AM Subject: Re: Formal Review: Optional library
> Hello, > > I am very much in favor of such a library. Great! > I've > written this same library and have found it useful in > several applications I've written. > It's nice to see that someone else (besides B&N AFAIK) have done this! > I have one suggestion though. I suggest calling the > class maybe instead of optional. There are two > reasons for this. > > 1. This idiom is widely used in other languages > (haskell comes to mind) calling it maybe. > Good point... but being not familiar with those languages, "maybe" doesn't sounds good to me :-) > 2. Maybe well describes the idea that this particular > variable might have a value. As opposed to optional > arguments to a function. It is also shorter and more > to the point IMO. > I agree is shorter, but I disagree is more to the point. Anyway, I've came to get used to 'optional<>', so is very unlikely that I'll change it. Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
