RE: [boost] Re: unions

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 18:19:08

--- Brock Peabody <brock.peabody_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> So library could offer any one of
> 
> (1) no exception safety guarantees
> (2) basic guarantee
> (3) strong guarantee

Good summary.  I would prefer the second option.
I think it should be possible to implement basic
guarantees without the backup heap.
The requirement says that variant should
contain *a* value, so why do we need 
a backup heap.  If we don't need a backup heap
we don't have an issues with the first-type switch.

> My personal preference would be for (3).  I'd take the performance penalty
> (the double allocation?) to get the strong guarantee - just do the right
> thing you know.

I agree with you in general, but IMO variant is a very basic type
that should be useable in application where performance is important.

Eugene

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