Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Krzysztof Czainski (1czajnik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-25 17:20:08
2013/1/25 Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege_at_[hidden]>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Krzysztof Czainski <1czajnik_at_[hidden]
> > So to me the question is: should move introduce an "uninitialized" state
> > for types that don't have one in the first place. Int has an
> > state. Iterators in std algorithms are allowed to have such a state too.
> > And now we have moved-from objects - should they be allowed an additional
> > "uninitialized" state?
> > I answer yes, because moved-from objects must not be used for anything
> > other than destruction or assignment-to.
> But I don't think this is the question - or it was, but no longer is -
> because I think the standard already asked and answered the question (and
> it was hotly debated, but answered) - the answer was that moved from
> objects should be in valid but unknown states. ie not UB. not
Oh, thanks for clarifying this. I thought the standard said, that moved
from objects should be in a state valid only for destruction/assignment to.
If I was wrong, and it says the moved from objects must also be usable in
other ways (i.e. readable), then you just convinced me here ;-) And in this
case, I am against adding an empty state to variant recursive wrapper.
We might wish it different, but it isn't.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk