| |
| ▲ | spacechild1 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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.) | | |
| ▲ | sgsjchs 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | spacechild1 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, reopening a socket implies that I have manually closed the socket, which does require an optional with your implementation. |
|
|
|