undefined | Better HN

0 pointsspacechild19mo ago0 comments

So I essentially have to wrap it in something like std::optional. Well, that's certainly one way to write a socket class, but I'd say it's not idiomatic C++. (I have never seen a socket class being implemented like that.)

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

sgsjchs9mo ago· 1 in thread

You don't need optional in this case, the assignment would just destroy the old socket and immediately move the new one in its place.

spacechild1OP9mo ago

Well, reopening a socket implies that I have manually closed the socket, which does require an optional with your implementation.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse