Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-10 07:03:03
Thank you all for your comments!
strict_get and relaxed_get sound much better that safe_get/unsafe_get, so I
renamed the new methods.
get<> behavior by default would be strict, while old behavior could be
restored by defining BOOST_VARIANT_USE_RELAXED_GET_BY_DEFAULT.
-- Best regards, Antony Polukhin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk