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.