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

From: brock (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 19:04:19

----- Original Message -----
From: "E. Gladyshev" <egladysh_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Re: Variant implementation change (was
re:unions)finalsummary

>
> --- Brock Peabody <brock.peabody_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> [...]
> > 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?
> >
>
> I agree with that completely.

Well, I may have been wrong :)  What do you think of Rainer's solution?

(3) Variants are singular only after a failed assignment