Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-26 04:53:07

Le 26/05/2017 à 00:52, Gavin Lambert via Boost a écrit :
> On 26/05/2017 00:30, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>
>>> I need a default constructor even if uninitialized.
>>> What do you think an uninitialized default constructor?
>>
>> Awful, of course. Gratuitous undefined behavior is never good.
>
> +1
After some exchanges with Jonathan I believe now that we shouldn't have 
the uninitialized default constructor.
My arguments were wrong and this makes the implementation less efficient 
and more complex.

So either we have the status-quo or we delete it.

I start to think that maybe the best would be to remove it :(

Best,
Vicente