Re: [boost] [variant2] Need rationale for never-empty guarantee

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] Need rationale for never-empty guarantee
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-03-01 20:35:59

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:14 AM Niall Douglas via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I find that situation daft. And it was completely avoidable.
>
> For me, a HUGE tick in favour of variant2 is that it has the design
> which std::variant should have had from the beginning, at little build
> time nor runtime cost over std::variant.
>
> I will therefore be strongly recommending the use of variant2 instead of
> std::variant wherever possible. Until WG21 clean up that mess, which I
> hope variant2 will help persuade them to do.

+1

Or not, and that'd be one more step towards Boost being better than the
standard library. It's a trend. :)