220 13940 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Reconstruct function idea Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:02:26 +0300 Lines: 28 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <8a74f08b-7453-4d1a-9f20-bc1d3866617c@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1413410556 12762 80.91.229.3 (15 Oct 2014 22:02:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:02:36 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRB4657OQQKGQEC5QN4TQ@isocpp.org Thu Oct 16 00:02:29 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f72.google.com ([209.85.220.72]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XeWeK-0002pm-Uq for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:02:29 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf11739815pab.3 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=qgTjE03JF5Y5NTuvm2rp45l/YKuG5SvJXmECUlKpYBI=; b=CNlBEMFuuON2by7ApjqxRbzKf6EKinVTPwuYZGT76GftfEjRk2wDUDsWwLDCIKniLN W1J+VDutj1W9KQIZ3yKBpANZFQfvGDdAmUro/Ldpgnx0BuQ2iNSbJAO8aMdT+clzJfSS 8IxFj3xOWp9ZMVC8KbuJ+2JLiFGfZj3pkLQPmwHgZLaoef3+2RDG990if2975VxnUm6r /Su6oBX0hcjgnuPeEGevLWZxHkeA922QTJunYGLMam+wLJqw+9RJmV3ceFck8nkaywg1 +TpzJ9lN6Vx4Sz3fTgp/aWjkVXAc7eu/dWomVZdIkH2CBLZuLs/0JaF20fQ9nFovW+XF R4/g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+dUzecWrAU0VCT7qq5knUXF9fZVA+pQdBTkwsIeIC8S9rssn0qe/asobTYEFWDe6SPGsx X-Received: by 10.70.131.230 with SMTP id op6mr10224649pdb.4.1413410547882; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.246.226 with SMTP id xz2ls164531obc.40.gmail; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.20.76 with SMTP id l12mr4266309obe.63.1413410547151; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o130si20546976oia.61.2014.10.15.15.02.27 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b; Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u20so1727335oif.30 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.102.98 with SMTP id fn2mr13509728obb.15.1413410546999; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.151.36 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:02:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8a74f08b-7453-4d1a-9f20-bc1d3866617c@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:13940 Archived-At: On 16 October 2014 00:17, Myriachan wrote: >> It's called std::experimental::optional. > While that is a nice feature, it's not the same as needing to do this to > types that weren't created as std::optional. Some questions: 1) if you can refactor code to take into use this reconstruction function, do you think you can't change the same code to start using optional? If so, why? 2) do you think this function is important and common enough to standardize it, and if so, based on what(*)? (*) I'm looking for more than anecdotes here, because if you say "I use such a thing every day", I will respond "whereas I never use such things, so let's call it a push". ;) -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .