News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ask HN: Good C++ code bases to read?. Parent comment

Re:Ask HN: Good C++ code bases to read? by jcelerier on Thursday October 29, 2020 @05:16AM (#24928582)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Good C++ code bases to read? by tome on Thursday October 29, 2020 @01:32PM (#24932924)
> 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)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Good C++ code bases to read? by monocasa on Thursday October 29, 2020 @07:39AM (#24929410)
It's been in Standard ML since the 80s.
[ Parent | on HN ]