What confuses me is that I always thought that T? was sugar for
Optional<T> by design, and found that to be quite elegant.
ditto, i thought the same.
But now you’re telling me that its just a hack to allow conformance on
Optionals until it can be made structural. I would have thought that it
would be cleaner to have specific concepts (optionals, tuples, etc…)
represented in terms of more general concepts (enum, struct) so that the
compiler had less to reason about. I’m just trying to understand
on Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:01:16 +0100 David Hart <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: