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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk