Re: [boost] Re: basic guarantees in variant

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 11:28:45

--- David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Yes, but not for anything else.  This is exactly the memcpy trick that
> Eric was referring to earlier.  The fact that you spelled it
> "variant_copy" and not "memcpy" doesn't change anything; it has the
> same semantics.  I don't know why we have to keep going over the same
> ground over and over again.  All of this is in the discussion
> archives.  If people would just go back and do some review we could
> avoid lots of wasted bandwidth and, I dare say, aggravation.

variant_copy() is completely defined.  Eric's concerns about
memcpy was that is undefinded.

Stop kidding yourself, variant_copy is much more predicable
than new T() that variant is using to provide basic guarantess.
Theretically, if a copy constructor crashes the memory
heap could already be corrupted.
The stack solution is much more safer in this respect
and it provides strong guarantess.

[...] 

> No, you can't.

Yes, you can.

Eugene

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