Skip to content

Conversation

@elbeno
Copy link
Contributor

@elbeno elbeno commented May 29, 2025

Problem:

  • Sometimes it's desirable to select stdx::optional or std::optional based on whether tombstone_traits is specialized or not.

Solution:

  • Add a specialized typedef to the primary template for tombstone_traits to allow easy identification.

@elbeno elbeno linked an issue May 29, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link
Contributor

@lukevalenty lukevalenty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good as long as the unit tests are passing

Problem:
- Sometimes it's desirable to select `stdx::optional` or `std::optional` based on
  whether tombstone_traits is specialized or not.

Solution:
- Add a `specialized` typedef to the primary template for tombstone_traits to
  allow easy identification.
@elbeno elbeno force-pushed the easy-optional-selection branch from d49bfc8 to 50c5fb4 Compare May 29, 2025 20:21
@elbeno elbeno enabled auto-merge May 29, 2025 20:21
@elbeno elbeno merged commit ff61017 into intel:main May 30, 2025
82 of 84 checks passed
@elbeno elbeno deleted the easy-optional-selection branch October 16, 2025 20:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Help with detecting if optional is valid

2 participants