Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: unions

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-07 00:34:30

--- Eric Friedman <ebf_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> However, as I noted in previous messages, allocation on the heap can be
> avoided entirely for any type Ti in variant<T1, ..., TN> if T1 is nothrow
> default-constructible. I would suggest then that, if none of your types are
> guaranteed to have a nothrow default constructor, you work with
> variant<boost::empty, T1, ..., TN>. Even if you never make direct use of
> boost::empty, this will ensure all allocation will be via placement new and
> never on the heap.

What was the reason for giving the first type such a special meaning?
I don't see why the first type should be any more special than others.
I think it is quite confusing.

Eugene

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com