Re: [boost] [optional] problems with swap()

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-11 15:00:50

Hi Thorsten,

Adding the new requirement is out of the question, but it's definitely 
possible to choose default construction or zero-initialization as 
appropiate. And IMO that magic would be best placed within boost::in_place() 
itself since it makes a lot of sense, given its nature, to do 
zero-initialization for non-default constructible types.

With such a smart in_place factory, the optional swap implementation would 
look exactly as you proposed it AFAICT.

Good job!

Best

-- 
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft
http://fcacciola.50webs.com
http://groups.google.com/group/cppba