[boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: Formal review or Variant Library (Ed B.)

From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-19 20:54:01

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > In fact, come to think of it, why not just:
> >
> >     get<T>(v)
>
> That settles it; Joel is now my official name-meister!

Seems OK to me, too.

Some questions though:

1) Semantics of get<> are to fail at compile-time for tuples. Not so for
variant, any, etc. Is this a problem? Also, what about a "nothrow version"
of get?

2) Do most compilers allow overloads to be chosen by explicit template
instantiation arguments alone? That is,

  template <typename T, typename U> void f(U & operand);
  template <unsigned I, typename U> void f(U & operand);

  int main() {
      int i;
      f<double>(i);
      f<3>(i);
  }

3) More minor: What should I rename boost::extractable and
boost::extractable_traits? boost::gettable is just so damn ugly <g>.

Thanks,
Eric