Re: [boost] Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem

Subject: Re: [boost] Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-05 17:29:34

On 4/2/2015 3:06 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2015 at 10:38, Nevin Liber wrote:
>
>>> I
>>> 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?
>
> I don't think any such request has emerged. I base my understanding
> on the fact eggs.variant is written by an old timer Booster, yet as
> is obvious from the source code it is not intended to enter Boost.
>
> Why its author does not intend this, or if I am wrong in my
> understanding from examining the source code, I'd imagine its author
> is the right person to ask. I am merely inferring from a detailed
> examination of its source code (I helped get VS2013 support in
> there).

Eggs.Variant started as an experiment on what a generalized union would 
look like. It tries to be to `union` what `std::tuple` is to `struct` 
(it is not a sum type like Boost.Variant). I based the design on 
`std::experimental::optional`, and I'm already regretting those places 
where I didn't. I wouldn't consider submitting it for inclusion into 
Boost as that would force me to stabilize things, which would conflict 
with my desire to experiment.

Regards,
-- 
Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-
http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com