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

From: Niels Dekker - mail address until 2008-12-31 (nd_mail_address_valid_until_2008-12-31_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-11 16:20:48

Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> 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.

Please explain!  Doesn't a call to boost::in_place(), having zero 
arguments, require T to be DefaultConstructible?

Kind regards, Niels