How should one use std::optional?

Question

The simplest example I can think of:

std::optional<int> try_parse_int(std::string s)
{
    //try to parse an int from the given string,
    //and return "nothing" if you fail
}

The same thing might be accomplished with a reference argument instead (as in the following signature), but using std::optional makes the signature and usage nicer.

bool try_parse_int(std::string s, int& i);

Another way that this could be done is especially bad:

int* try_parse_int(std::string s); //return nullptr if fail

This requires dynamic memory allocation, worrying about ownership, etc. - always prefer one of the other two signatures above.

---

Another example:

class Contact
{
    std::optional<std::string> home_phone;
    std::optional<std::string> work_phone;
    std::optional<std::string> mobile_phone;
};

This is extremely preferable to instead having something like a std::unique_ptr<std::string> for each phone number! std::optional gives you data locality, which is great for performance.

---

Another example:

template<typename Key, typename Value>
class Lookup
{
    std::optional<Value> get(Key key);
};

If the lookup doesn't have a certain key in it, then we can simply return "no value."

I can use it like this:

Lookup<std::string, std::string> location_lookup;
std::string location = location_lookup.get("waldo").value_or("unknown");

---

Another example:

std::vector<std::pair<std::string, double>> search(
    std::string query,
    std::optional<int> max_count,
    std::optional<double> min_match_score);

This makes a lot more sense than, say, having four function overloads that take every possible combination of max_count (or not) and min_match_score (or not)!

It also eliminates the accursed "Pass -1 for max_count if you don't want a limit" or "Pass std::numeric_limits<double>::min() for min_match_score if you don't want a minimum score"!

---

Another example:

std::optional<int> find_in_string(std::string s, std::string query);

If the query string isn't in s, I want "no int" -- not whatever special value someone decided to use for this purpose (-1?).

---

For additional examples, you could look at the boost::optional documentation. boost::optional and std::optional will basically be identical in terms of behavior and usage.

An example is quoted from New adopted paper: N3672, std::optional:

 optional<int> str2int(string);    // converts int to string if possible

int get_int_from_user()
{
     string s;

     for (;;) {
         cin >> s;
         optional<int> o = str2int(s); // 'o' may or may not contain an int
         if (o) {                      // does optional contain a value?
            return *o;                  // use the value
         }
     }
}

but I don't understand when I should use it or how I should use it.

Consider when you are writing an API and you want to express that "not having a return" value is not an error. For example, you need to read data from a socket, and when a data block is complete, you parse it and return it:

class YourBlock { /* block header, format, whatever else */ };

std::optional<YourBlock> cache_and_get_block(
    some_socket_object& socket);

If the appended data completed a parsable block, you can process it; otherwise, keep reading and appending data:

void your_client_code(some_socket_object& socket)
{
    char raw_data[1024]; // max 1024 bytes of raw data (for example)
    while(socket.read(raw_data, 1024))
    {
        if(auto block = cache_and_get_block(raw_data))
        {
            // process *block here
            // then return or break
        }
        // else [ no error; just keep reading and appending ]
    }
}

Edit: regarding the rest of your questions:

When is std::optional a good choice to use

• When you compute a value and need to return it, it makes for better semantics to return by value than to take a reference to an output value (that may not be generated).

• When you want to ensure that client code has to check the output value (whoever writes the client code may not check for error - if you attempt to use an un-initialized pointer you get a core dump; if you attempt to use an un-initialized std::optional, you get a catch-able exception).

[...] and how does it compensate for what was not found in the previous Standard (C++11).

Previous to C++11, you had to use a different interface for "functions that may not return a value" - either return by pointer and check for NULL, or accept an output parameter and return an error/result code for "not available".

Both impose extra effort and attention from the client implementer to get it right and both are a source of confusion (the first pushing the client implementer to think of an operation as an allocation and requiring client code to implement pointer-handling logic and the second allowing client code to get away with using invalid/uninitialized values).

std::optional nicely takes care of the problems arising with previous solutions.

I often use optionals to represent optional data pulled from configuration files, that is to say where that data (such as with an expected, yet not necessary, element within an XML document) is optionally provided, so that I can explicitly and clearly show if the data was actually present in the XML document. Especially when the data can have a "not set" state, versus an "empty" and a "set" state (fuzzy logic). With an optional, set and not set is clear, also empty would be clear with the value of 0 or null.

This can show how the value of "not set" is not equivalent to "empty". In concept, a pointer to an int (int * p) can show this, where a null (p == 0) is not set, a value of 0 (*p == 0) is set and empty, and any other value (*p <> 0) is set to a value.

For a practical example, I have a piece of geometry pulled from an XML document that had a value called render flags, where the geometry can either override the render flags (set), disable the render flags (set to 0), or simply not affect the render flags (not set), an optional would be a clear way to represent this.

Clearly a pointer to an int, in this example, can accomplish the goal, or better, a share pointer as it can offer cleaner implementation, however, I would argue it's about code clarity in this case. Is a null always a "not set"? With a pointer, it is not clear, as null literally means not allocated or created, though it could, yet might not necessarily mean "not set". It is worth pointing out that a pointer must be released, and in good practice set to 0, however, like with a shared pointer, an optional doesn't require explicit cleanup, so there isn't a concern of mixing up the cleanup with the optional having not been set.

I believe it's about code clarity. Clarity reduces the cost of code maintenance, and development. A clear understanding of code intention is incredibly valuable.

Use of a pointer to represent this would require overloading the concept of the pointer. To represent "null" as "not set", typically you might see one or more comments through code to explain this intention. That's not a bad solution instead of an optional, however, I always opt for implicit implementation rather than explicit comments, as comments are not enforceable (such as by compilation). Examples of these implicit items for development (those articles in development that are provided purely to enforce intention) include the various C++ style casts, "const" (especially on member functions), and the "bool" type, to name a few. Arguably you don't really need these code features, so long as everyone obeys intentions or comments.