Subject: Re: [boost] [utility/value_init] boost::value_initialized<T> direct-initialized?
From: Jeffrey Hellrung (jhellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-31 04:54:47
Jeffrey Hellrung wrote:
> Also, your initialized<T> does not have a default constructor. This
> makes sense, but I'm just double-checking that this is a conscious
> decision and not an oversight.
Actually, on second thought, this doesn't make sense, but I might be
missing something...why would one use an initialized<T> with no default
constructor, rather than just T itself?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk