Re: [boost] [utility/value_init] boost::value_initialized<T> direct-initialized?

Subject: Re: [boost] [utility/value_init] boost::value_initialized<T> direct-initialized?
From: Jeffrey Hellrung (jhellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-01 12:32:32

Niels Dekker - address until 2010-10-10 wrote:
> I think /the/ motivating use case for boost::initialized<T> is about 
> member data initialization:
[...]
> Do you agree that its support for member data initialization would be 
> the main reason for having boost::initialized<T>?

Yes.

>> And I don't think the boost::direct_initialized tag is
>> necessary,
>> MSVC compiler bugs be damned.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. It's certainly important to me to 
> have something that works on MSVC.

Is that MSVC bug (the one referenced in the value_initialized 
ticket...no link handy at the moment) not "workaroundable" by explicitly 
defining the derived class' copy constructor?  And isn't it only a 
problem when the base class has a constructor other than the copy 
constructor that that a const derived& can bind to?  Perhaps I need to 
go back and reread the Microsoft ticket...

- Jeff