From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-04 15:48:20
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> Also, I am not necessarily advocating strong exception guarantee. I
>>> would be fine if the semantics of operator= were such that it may
>>> leave the object in a particular unusual state. The problem is that as
>>> it is now, it may leave the object in a seemingly OK state.
> Yes, I was aware of this workaround and of the one Mathias mentioned.
> However, variant<foo,bar,blank> and variant<wrapper<foo>,wrapper<bar>>
> aren't the same as variant<foo,bar>. I'm questioning the rationale of
> the current variant::operator= semantics, not necessarily looking for
> a way to work around them.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to require boost::blank to be listed,
in order to allow a variant to be left in a "particular unusual state"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk