On: Ask HN: Good C++ code bases to read?

[monocasa]

Yes.

And I think (hope?) that std::optional is going to make it's way into the dust bins of history like auto_ptr.

When the answer is "just don't deference it if it's null", then why not just use a pointer in the first place?

[_dh54 → monocasa]

Again, optional is different from pointer because it offers value semantics.

[monocasa → _dh54]

I know they're different (and the construct unfortunately named optional has some occasional uses); it's just that the semantics of optional don't help it be used as a classic optional type.

[jcelerier → monocasa]

> it's just that the semantics of optional don't help it be used as a classic optional type.

what do you mean "classic optional type"? boost.optional has worked like that for something like 20 years - it's been in C++ for longer than Maybe has been in Haskell.

[tome → jcelerier]

> it's been in C++ for longer than Maybe has been in Haskell.

Tangentially, how did you conclude that? Haskell has around since 1990 but boost only since 1999, as far as I can tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_(programming_language)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_(C%2B%2B_libraries)

[monocasa → jcelerier]

It's been in Standard ML since the 80s.