Re: [boost] Re: Variant implementation change (was re: unions) final summary

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 15:17:34

--- Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[...]

> If you have not done so, please read:
>   http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1311813
> 
> This is the basis by which we have concluded that solutions requiring copying 
> the individual bits lead to undefined behavior. If you believe that you have 
> a solution, please present it and describe why it does not lead to undefined 
> behavior, referencing the clauses David Abrahams has cited in the above 
> message.
> 
> Please do note that you are refuting something that is considered to have 
> already been proven in prior discussions, which have been cited. In this 
> circumstance, the burden of proof falls on you.

I read his message. I don't see any prove there just a statement from
the standard that doesn't prove anything.

My first question what does "reusing storage" really mean?
How is the process of "reusing storage" defined?

The second issue is if look at my solution, you won't see
any so called non-POD bitwise copying.

I repeat it again all my code is doing is copying one char[]
to another char[]. Both variables have been allocated
as char[] originally there is not any casting going on.

How else can I prove it?

Eugene

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