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

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-11 17:04:55

Niels Dekker - mail address until 2008-12-31 wrote:
> 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?
>
I was posposing to remove that requirement to have it be zero-initialized 
instead... but don't listen to me.

Is there a list with the worst ideas ever? I'd like to add this one ;)

Now that I finally got that much needed jar of cofee: I do like Thorsten 
proposal even if the implementation must use type-traits to do that only 
when the type is default-constructible.

Best

Fernando Cacciola