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

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 23:02:19

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

> That's an example, not a definition. Reusing storage means that part of the 
> storage associated with an object is used to construct an object of a 
> different type. 

Ok, how about.

struct my_type
{
  char x[sizeof(char)];
};

my_type m;

char *p = new( (void*)&m.x );

I am using the part of already constructed object 'm' to construct
another object so is 'm' lifetime is over?

[...]

> It's hard to stay this without being incendiary, but just because you were not 
> able to deduce the concept of "reusing storage" from the standard text does 
> not mean that it is undefined. 

Can anybody deduce it for me please and show the deduction?

> 
> This thread needs to end. It has wasted too much time and too much bandwidth 
> so far, and has produced nothing. The method you have proposed does not work, 

Just saying "doesn't work" is not a way to work for people
with open mind (I don't mean anybody personally).
I believe booster's have an open mind.

> as has been pointed out several times. 

Don't point out, please prove it.

> If you would like to try another 
> approach, please feel free to. However, do not expect us to hold you hand to 
> lead you to the conclusion we have already reached long ago

You have reached a wrong conclusion!
The right conclusion would be to streamline 
the standard reagarding storage concept and
then go back to the discussion of the object 
lifetime concept.

Eugene

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