Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-26 04:53:07
Le 26/05/2017 à 00:52, Gavin Lambert via Boost a écrit :
> On 26/05/2017 00:30, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>> I need a default constructor even if uninitialized.
>>> What do you think an uninitialized default constructor?
>> Awful, of course. Gratuitous undefined behavior is never good.
After some exchanges with Jonathan I believe now that we shouldn't have
the uninitialized default constructor.
My arguments were wrong and this makes the implementation less efficient
and more complex.
So either we have the status-quo or we delete it.
I start to think that maybe the best would be to remove it :(
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk