Personally I hate OPT (because it’s somewhat harder to read and more-than-somewhat harder to debug).
I also dislike auto, except in the case of stl::’s overly-verbose iterators. Again, they make the code harder to read more often than not. Maybe I’m just showing my age…. > On 24 Nov 2019, at 11:13, Ian McInerney <ian.s.mciner...@ieee.org> wrote: > > What is the current consensus on using OPT types in the code? I know there > are some instances where we are already using them from the Boost library > (since our C++ version isn't high enough to include them), but is that > considered a good type to use more of? > > I am curious, because I am thinking of replumbing the position storage in the > tool events to use OPTs for the position, because that will allow for cleaner > handling of the position in the tools, and also because I need to pass the > positions into the selection routines, and being able to pass an OPT will > greatly simplify things (I think). > > -Ian > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
