Difference between revisions of "Talk:cpp/utility/optional/and then"
From cppreference.com
(Why restricted return type?) |
(Never mind) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
It would be far more convenient if the method itself constructed the optional and more in keeping with convenient syntax in other languages such as C#: a?.foo()?.bar()?.baz(). | It would be far more convenient if the method itself constructed the optional and more in keeping with convenient syntax in other languages such as C#: a?.foo()?.bar()?.baz(). | ||
It also requires a default constructible result type, which is another needles(?) restriction. | It also requires a default constructible result type, which is another needles(?) restriction. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Never mind - The method I was expecting is called "transform". | ||
Revision as of 01:03, 9 November 2021
Why do these methods require that the return type is drived from std::optional? It would be far more convenient if the method itself constructed the optional and more in keeping with convenient syntax in other languages such as C#: a?.foo()?.bar()?.baz(). It also requires a default constructible result type, which is another needles(?) restriction.
Never mind - The method I was expecting is called "transform".
