Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior (Was: Basic rvalue and C++11 features seupport)
From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-28 11:18:43
On 1/28/13 10:17 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> 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
> 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?
The problem is that it is a workaround for something that I no longer
think as necessary. It is a workaround that goes around the problem
that *all* proxy-like classes will have given your view of how
move should behave.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk