Hacker News Reader

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.)

View on HN

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com