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: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-21 18:51:53

> 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.

I'd prefer to have a nullable variant as well. If not that, then I would
like to support II: Set operand.p_ to NULL, add BOOST_ASSERT in get
operations.

Regards Hartmut
---------------
http://boost-spirit.com
http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu