From: Brock Peabody (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 15:52:13
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of E. Gladyshev
> 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
Yeah, and I agree with the outcome of that discussion - which was about
finding a type with nothrow default constructors, not about singular
variants. This is not the ideal solution - that would take something like a
policy. The point is that those who want variants that can be singular can
get them - albeit through a less than ideal syntax.
We have two choices:
(1) People who need variants that can be singular can get them but they have
to use the unusual and possibly confusing syntax of putting boost::empty as
the first type.
(2) All variants can be singular.
Do you agree with that?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk