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 18:54:17

On 1/22/13 7:49 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> 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, ... > ?

Less work behind the scenes. Lighter TMP load. better noexcept
guarantees. Etc.

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