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: 2013-01-28 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
> 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?

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.

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