Re: [boost] [unnullable_ptr] Proposal for a new library

From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-23 21:43:49

AMDG

David Abrahams wrote:
> Objects that provide strong invariants are easier to work with, too, and I
> value a strong invariant far more than a default constructor.  In fact, I
> almost never have any use for the latter.
>   

Right.  Never mind that--I don't know what I was thinking.

> I'm not sure point b) is as absolutely true as you state it to be.  I
> believe there are cases where you can provide such a nothrow move.  The
> most obvious case is for objects that have no deep data.
>   

Ok.  I wasn't being precise, but b) is true for Boost.Function.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe