News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012). Parent comment

Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by Koshkin on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @08:36PM (#18669245)
Hmm... Do you really need to wrap a pointer in std::optional?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by int_19h on Thursday December 13, 2018 @06:18AM (#18671466)
It forces anyone trying to use it to contemplate the no-value case.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by kllrnohj on Thursday December 13, 2018 @12:44PM (#18674291)
Replace the pointer with a value type and now you'd see why the optional is necessary.

Similarly I'd probably substitute the optional with a variant that has the actual error code. Go nuts with whatever you want here.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (2012) by Koshkin on Thursday December 13, 2018 @03:18PM (#18675655)
> Go nuts

Let's make error code optional, too.

[ Parent | on HN ]