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: 2019-03-02 05:03:54

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:55 PM Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 2. this state is actually read instead of being destroyed (or overwritten)

Why does it have to be read instead of destroyed? The reason why
valid-but-unspecified is useful is not because reading it is somehow
desirable, but because it could happen. It's better than seeing pink
elephants.