From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-23 01:33:44
Ronald Garcia wrote:
> In reading through the variant docs, I noticed a requirement that at least
> two types must be supported by the variant. Is this meant for ease of
> library implementation, or is this a means of protecting programmers from
> themselves? :-)
In addition to the comments offered by Itay, the original idea was that one
parameter would be reserved exclusively for the variant<Types> syntax. With
the advent of mpl::is_sequence, however, this is no longer necessary IMO.
Now, particularly after proposals for the idea of variant containing an
empty 'void' type, I am in favor of eliminating the parameter count
requirement altogether. In other words, variant<> would be shorthand for
variant<void>, which would be always empty but still conformant with the
Thanks for your comments.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk