Subject: [boost] Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue member requirements)
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 11:38:52
On 2 April 2015 at 08:13, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> was recently working with eggs.variant for example, and that is Boost
> quality written to Boost guidelines and yet I understand there is
> zero interest in it entering Boost, despite it being superior to
> Boost.Variant in almost every way.
I don't remember anyone asking if they'd like to see this in Boost. Could
you point to a thread?
Even though you claim it is superior in almost every way, if I'm reading it
correctly it has one fundamental difference in that it models
"at-most-one-of" vs. Boost.Variant which models "exactly-one-of".
And yes, I would like to see it in Boost, because as variant gets proposed
for the standard, it would be better to have a lot more user experience to
help us decide that fundamental question.
That certainly fits the current mission in that "We aim to establish
'existing practice' and provide reference implementations so that Boost
libraries are suitable for eventual standardization."
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk