Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Maintainer
From: Louis Dionne (ldionne.2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-14 16:10:34
Larry Evans <cppljevans <at> suddenlink.net> writes:
> On 07/14/2015 11:16 AM, Nevin Liber wrote:
> > On 14 July 2015 at 08:01, Larry Evans <cppljevans <at> suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >> What about variant<>, or is that disallowed?
> >> If it is disallowed, then tuple<> should, I guess, also be disallowed.
> > Why?
> I know it that, at first glance, an empty product or empty coproduct
> doesn't make much sense, but, then again, adding 0 to a numerical
> sum doesn't make any difference; hence, why is there any need
> for 0? Apparently the category people think there's sufficient
> reason to define an empty coproduct and empty product; hence, I'd
> guess there's some good reason.
> Category experts (e.g. Louis Dionne), can you supply some better
Without false modesty, I can say that I am an absolute beginner in category
theory. So don't expect any clear cut answer from me. Bartosz Milewski
might be able to provide more insight, since he's been writing a book
about category theory for programmers.
That being said, I gathered my opinion on the mathematical aspect of the
thing into a short blog post at . I'd like to emphasize that I'm only
looking at the problem from a mathematical perspective, disregarding
implementation issues or actual usefulness, because I haven't been
following the different variant discussions and proposals enough to
have a strong or valuable opinion.
It should be a compilation error to create an object of type variant<>.
Also, seeing Peter Dimov's reply, it seems like the variant designers came
to the same conclusion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk