Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior (Was: Basic rvalue and C++11 features seupport)
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-21 18:49:09
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
How is this different from variant< blank, ... > ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk