Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Paul Smith (pl.smith.mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-28 09:10:47
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think we are OK!
> Come to think of it, the situation is a lot like a "singular" iterator:
> "Iterators can also have singular values that are not associated with
> any sequence. [snip] Results of most expressions are undefined for
> singular values; the only exceptions are destroying an iterator that
> holds a singular value, the assignment of a non-singular value to an
> iterator that holds a singular value, and, for iterators that satisfy
> the DefaultConstructible requirements, using a value-initialized iterator
> as the source of a copy or move operation."
> Indeed, for a singular valued iterator, i, you can assign to i and
> destruct i, place i in a container, etc. You just cannot dereference
> i, access its underlying value through ->, compare i with another
> iterator, etc.
> The same is true with a nulled recursive_wrapper.
> Being honest about this is just a matter of documentation. I do not
> see any problem at all with having a "singular" recursive_wrapper
Then you're still thinking in terms of destructive move. The reason
why you don't see a problem with a "singular valued" recursive_wrapper
(that's what we call it now? :-) is that you don't think anyone will
try to use it. And, c'mon, it's not just a matter of documentation -
we're not trying to weasel our way out of this. Adding a new and
entirely different state just for the sake of move construction is a
polite way of ignoring the possiblity that moved-from objects will be
used. It might win you a case in court, but it's completely missing
Besides, drawing from iterators to recursive_wrappers is dangerous.
They're completely different things. A recursive_wrapper's value *is*
its underlying object's value - it's not a pointer. Talking about
"singular values" under this concept doesn't make sense.
If you want a recursive_wrapper that has an empty state, that's fine.
But it's a different concept that deserves a different type.
-- Paul Smith