Re: [boost] Re: unions

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-07 03:44:22

--- Eric Friedman <ebf_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> 
> I disagree. The *only* relevant guarantee made by a variant<T1,...,TN> 
> is that at all times it contains exactly one value of one type Ti. Thus, 
> in the event of assignment failure, there is no guarantee that the 
> contained type Tk after failure is the same type Tj as before.
> 
> There is nothing "unpredictable" about going into assignment with some 
> type U and coming out after failure with boost::empty (or some other 
> nothrow default-constructible type).

Then why do we need the assignment exception safety that is based
on what the first type is. Sorry it doesn't make sense to me.
I guess I am missing something.

Eugene

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