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

From: brock (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 20:14:45

----- Original Message -----
From: "E. Gladyshev" <egladysh_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Variant implementation change
(wasre:unions)finalsummary

>
> --- brock <brock.peabody_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Well, I may have been wrong :)
>
> No problem to be wrong. :) I do it all the time.
> We are all learning (lifelong process).
>
> > What do you think of Rainer's solution?
> >
> > (3) Variants are singular only after a failed assignment
>
> That was my point all along.
> Sorry if could not make it clear before.
> In a generic sense we should just
> say that variant can be singular
> (if we decide that it is a good solution).

There are a lot of disadvantages in allowing variants to be singular at any
time.  We've been all over this.  But if we say they can be singular only
after a failed assignment, then you can pretty safely ignore the possibility
in most of your code...  I think.  I wonder what Eric and Dave think of this
or if they finally got tired of all the noise and tuned out :)  Maybe this
is noise too :)

Brock