Boost logo

Boost :

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.


Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at