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 12:42:47

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

Yup, that's right. Except that it's not really my view, and I
definitely don't want to be holding the flag for conservative move
semantics. I'm just describing how things are (as far as I understand
them).

--
Paul Smith