Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-29 15:04:57
On Tuesday 29 January 2013 09:25:11 Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> This discussion might be facilitated if Joel et al (sorry Joel, I don't
> mean to pick on you, I just mean the group arguing for introducing this
> "singular" post-move state) simply said "yes, we understand we're making a
> breaking change (by possibly introducing an additional state to variant
> that violates the never-empty guarantee), but we still think it's the most
> practical approach to introduce efficient move semantics to variant".
That was my position from the start of this discussion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk