From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-06 07:31:01
David Abrahams wrote:
> I'm just looking through the variant library docs in detail and had
> the following commments:
Ah, if only boost::variant was actively maintained...
I had several issues raised in
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/06/105801.php and some time
later I encountered another issue - I think the default constructor for
variant is a bad idea. The thought came to me after I made a mistake of
typedef variant< optional<X>, optional<Y> > SomeType;
when I really meant was
typedef optional< variant<X, Y> > SomeType;
later in my code, thinking I had the right typedef, I constructed an
instance of SomeType using its default constructor, assuming I had an
empty optional<variant> in my hands, while I actually had a variant with
an empty optional<X>. Unfortunately, it compiled, and that mistake was
only found in run-time, with the help of the QA department.
If variant didn't have a default constructor, my mistake wouldn't have
compiled. IMO, this is also true from a more theoretical point of view -
there is no reason to favor one of the variant types (the first one)
over the others. Those types are basically equivalent and symmetric. If
the user wishes to add a default constructor himself, he can derive from
the variant, and add such a constructor, favoring the type of his
choice. Or maybe the best solution would be to add a template parameter
to boost::variant to indicate which of the types to use for the default
constructor, with an option (the default one) to not supply a default
constructor at all.
Of course I'm just saying all this here for Google's sake. Nothing real
would probably be done. Sad...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk