RE: [boost] Re: Variant implementation change (was re: unions) finalsummary

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 15:03:47

--- Brock Peabody <brock.peabody_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> > On Behalf Of E. Gladyshev
> 
> 
> > > (6) You can get the behavior in (4) by specifying boost::empty as one of
> > the
> > > possible types in variant.  Can't argue with that.
> > 
> > Not true. variant< my_type, empty > technically variant
> > can reinitialize (in case of an exception) my_type, not 'empty'.
> > It is not the same as singular variant. That is _fact_.
> 
> OK, reword (6) to be: "You can get the behavior in (4) by specifying
> boost::empty as the first type in a variant".
> 

Here we go again, Brock. It has alredy been discussed that it
is not a good generic solution to assign a special meaning to the first type.

Eugene

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