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: Paul Smith (pl.smith.mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-28 09:17:53

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I *always* use variant< blank, ... > (or something similar). And that is
> precisely why I don't care much about the never-empty guarantee.

I hope you *always* use variant<blank, ...> because it makes sense in
the cases you use it, and not just because that's the way the cookie
crumbles.
I also hope you appreciate that not everybody vacuously uses variant
like that, nor should they.

Anyway, you're lucky then. Peter's solution will give you as much
benefit as a nulled recursive_wrapper. Where's the problem?

--
Paul Smith