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

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: 2010-04-08 14:58:41

Robert Stewart wrote:
> Given that, I have to agree with Fernando that initialize is
> merely a superset of value_initialize and can be harder to explain
> unless it derives from value_initialize (even if it shares nothing
> from the base and only makes clear that it is a superset).

Thanks, Robert. But do you mean public inheritance? You know, I once 
considered having initialized<T> publicly derived from 
value_initialized<T>: 
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/03/164356.php  But then I 
realized that it would imply that any "initialized" object is also a 
value_initialized object. While certainly an initialized object does not 
need to be value-initialized.

Therefor I think composition is preferable to public inheritance, in 
this case. I really don't see what's wrong about the patch I submitted, 
having value_initialized<T> containing a private initialized<T> data 
member: 
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/attachment/ticket/3472/initialized.patch

Kind regards, Niels
-- 
Niels Dekker
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nd/dekkerware
Scientific programmer at LKEB, Leiden University Medical Center