Avoid using boost::optional in PassField()#17
Conversation
Refactor PassField() to an equivalent one that does not use boost::optional.
|
@ryanofsky as a followup to #16 I crudely stripped down While playing with it the patch in this PR materialized - we could remove some more boost without adding a |
|
This seems like a good approach, and I can merge this PR after a little testing. I agree that replacing optional isn't good if it's going to add a lot of new code. I was thinking a small optional class with basic emplace/get functionality could be implemented in something like ~100 lines, but if this isn't the case it's probably better to avoid adding a new optional class. And maybe it's better to avoid using optional altogether, since most of the changes you've made so far do seem like simplifications. |
a616312 Avoid using boost::optional in PassField() (Vasil Dimov) Pull request description: Refactor PassField() to an equivalent one that does not use boost::optional. ACKs for top commit: ryanofsky: Code review ACK a616312 Tree-SHA512: 43e3b107b8ba28d2ba8fb6f2c86f02585db7a588dc67aefece08e91ff79e0d850bf6312c5800cf87680f8da8cd3a649145d07886ad84bf138a5d567a80d8dbad
Refactor PassField() to an equivalent one that does not use
boost::optional.