Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Safe optional
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-18 16:02:24

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]>

> On 18 November 2014 01:16, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> > vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> I will ad that I believe Dr BS don't like dynamic visitation, but
> here
> > > we are doing pattern matching on types, isn't it?
> >
> >
> > For a while I assumed exactly that, but he actually specifically voiced
> > that he does not like visitation on variant and thinks of it as a hack.
> > It's sad :/
> >
> FWIW: I think he is (a) correct, but (b) we have nothing better to replace
> it, so we still need it.

We should really start a thread about this. I'm very curious to see an
actual objective rationale both for why visitation over a closed set of
types known at compile time is in any way a "hack," along with a realistic
alternative. It really is a fundamental operation of a discriminated union.
As someone who uses variants pretty much as the "default" for run-time
polymorphism in day-to-day coding, I have never seen an actual explanation
for what someone might consider bad about variant visitation, neither from
Bjarne nor anyone else.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at