Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] To variant, or not to variant?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-02 14:59:12
On 6/2/17 3:09 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
> There is one big difference with std::optional and std::variant - their
> design is now **the standard**, for better or for worse.
> All new code written henceforth ought to be designed around the C++
> standard in my book, with hacks/workarounds as appropriate where the
> standard object falls short.
Ahhhh - I argued in a different thread that we should pay less attention
to the C++ standard. Traditionally, they've followed Boost. Most of
the stuff in the standard have been test driven in Boost first. Even
so, they make mistakes - as is likely has been done in this case.
We should strive to make good well conceived, well designed, well
implemented library components. Let them pick and choose what they want
to standardize. We don't work for them, the work for us - promulgating
the stuff we've already implemented and proven useful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk