Re: [boost] Re: unions

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 12:58:05

--- Daniel Wallin <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[...]

> I don't yet buy that this is a problem for generic programming;
> 
> If variant is part of the program interface, the type shouldn't be changed
> anyway, so "wanting the benefit of the optimization" becomes the users
> problem.
> 
> If the variant is part of the implementation, where the type sequence
> is part of the interface, the invariant type is just an implementation
> detail, or part of the program documentation.

typedef variant< int, my_type > v1;
typedef variant< my_type, int > v2;

I think that we should just realize that 
in the current variant, v1 and v2 have 
a vastly different behaviour.

It just goes against any conventional 
wisdom and intuition. People, please...

I don't think that the *weak* exception 
safety (the way it is implement now) 
is worth it.

Eugene

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