Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior (Was: Basic rvalue and C++11 features seupport)

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior (Was: Basic rvalue and C++11 features seupport)
From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-21 18:33:24

On 1/22/13 3:57 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
> I've got some nice idea from discussion: nullable variant. If many
> people use or want to use a variant with a type, that represents empty
> state, we can create a separate nullable variant class. I think that
> nullable variant can be implemented more efficient that the current
> variant. For example we can simplify copy/move constructors and
> assignment operators, guarantee fast noexcept default construction,
> simplify metaprogamming and reduce compilation times. Maybe someone
> want to implement it?

I like it! If you implement it, I'll be your first user :-)
I don't really care much about this "never empty" guarantee and
I think it's not really worth the trouble.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com