std::optional does have dereference checking, but it's a run-time check: std::optional<T>::value(). Of course, you'll get an exception if the optional is empty, because there's nothing else for the callee to do.

▲

BeetleB 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> but it's a run-time check

And that's the problem. In other languages that have a Maybe type, it's a compile time check. If your code is not handling the "empty" case, it will simply fail to compile.

I honestly don't see any value in std::optional compared to the behavior pre-std::optional. What does it bring to the table for pointers, for example?

	▲	fluoridation 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Nothing, but I don't think anyone uses std::optional<T *>. However, if you need to specify an optional integer, std::optional is much clearer than encoding the null value as a negative or other such hacks. Another use of std::optional is to delay construction of an object without an extra dynamic allocation. That's way more convenient than using placement new.

▲

afdbcreid 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But the dereference operator invokes UB if there is no value.

Which is a recurring theme in C++: the default behavior is unsafe (in order to be faster), and there is a method to do the safe thing. Which is exactly the opposite of what it should be.

	▲	account42 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, it's the reason people choose C++.