Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-30 20:33:29
on Tue Jan 29 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.
> <jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden]> 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". I can
>> jive with that but I think Paul's concerned that you (again, as a
>> representative of the platform you're taking) don't appreciate that this is
>> a breaking change to variant.
> I think this is about a little more than that, even though to be
> honest, I'm not entirely sure what's the dispute is about too.
> I think it's closer to what Edward Diener said:
> The main issue seems to be simply this: are guarantees ( invariants )
> for an object of a class meant to cover moved from objects of that
I don't think that question should really even be on the table. If
"invariant" and "guarantee" are to have any useful meaning, the answer
must be "yes."
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk