From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-04 18:45:48
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> This still doesn't mean that it is desirable for operator= to be
>> allowed to change the type of the stored object.
> In other words, you /are/ advocating the strong guarantee.
>> If you list boost::blank as a valid variant, then there's nothing
>> unusual about this state. The difference in meaning is subtle but
>> nevertheless important: it's similar to a pointer that may legally be
>> null, requiring the user to deal with this possibility, vs. a pointer
>> which can never be null, allowing the user to assert when it is.
> I don't follow. IMO, unless you are making the exact variant type
> part of your class' public interface, it is irrelevant how you represent
> an empty variant. The only difference with adding boost::blank vs.
> creating some empty state, is that the presence of the empty state is
Look, if I have:
It is my understanding that if I now do:
I may end up with an int in a. Do you think that this behavior is reasonable?
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk