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

Subject: Re: [boost] [utility/value_init] boost::value_initialized<T> direct-initialized?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-02 11:17:25

AMDG

Niels Dekker - address until 2010-10-10 wrote:
> 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!

If we're changing value_initialized, okay.  But I thought we
were talking about adding a new class now?  Since this won't
break backward compatibility, I think the most reasonable
response is "don't do that."

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe