Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] How to drop the formal empty state
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-25 05:42:29

Le 25/05/2017 à 01:06, Niall Douglas via Boost a écrit :
>> Let me just clarify the nomenclature here. I understand that the only thing
>> you *need* to have is the *moved-form* state. There is no strong need to
>> provide a default constructor. Sure if you have a moved-from state, you
>> might as well use it in default constructor, but it is not the only option.
>> You could allow the moved-from state only as the result of a move.
> You don't need a moved-from state. If expected<T, E> is moved from and
> it had state T, it retains a state T, the value is whatever type T's
> move constructor left it in.
Right and this corresponds to a *moved-from* state. You can not do too
much with this until you know more about T behavior.
I would have preferred to have written a wording that just says that the
post-condition is a *moved-from* state where you can just assign or destroy.
> No need to be complex when simple will do.
This *moved-from* state corresponds exactly to the state we could have
with a uninitialized default constructor. The single things you can do
it to re-assign them or destroy them.

When we move an expected, we don't have any more the value or the error
if the move is not a copy.
I need to state this clearly on the wording of the proposal as it is not
so clear for everyone.


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