From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 14:15:41
"E. Gladyshev" <egladysh_at_[hidden]> writes:
> --- 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
>> 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.
Really? What are the differences?
> 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)
What is "weak" exception safety?
> is worth it.
IIUC the exception guarantees are the same whether or not the
optimization takes effect.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk