Subject: Re: [boost] [utility/value_init] boost::value_initialized<T> direct-initialized?
From: Niels Dekker - address until 2010-10-10 (niels_address_until_2010-10-10_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-02 03:38:12
>> the example I added to the ticket (#3472) would also be ambiguous on
>> other compilers, when value_initialized(T const&) would be added:
>> class my_integer
>> value_initialized<int> m_data;
>> operator value_initialized<int>() const;
>> operator int() const;
>> int main()
>> my_integer my;
>> value_initialized<int> val(my);
>> See http://codepad.org/zukxSDbB
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> Um. Why do you /want/ to do this?
I don't know, it's just an example. my_integer::operator
value_initialized<int>() might do some extra checks that
my_integer::operator int() does not. Or whatever. You know,
boost::value_initialized<T> has been around for very long already, so I
think it's possible that adding a value_initialized(T const&)
constructor might break some legacy user code. But please let me know if
you have a better example!
-- Niels Dekker http://www.xs4all.nl/~nd/dekkerware Scientific programmer at LKEB, Leiden University Medical Center
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk