Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] documentation request
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-03-04 09:55:13
>> This is why I would suggest variant2 provide elemental
>> single_buffer_variant and double_buffer_variant, and let the end user
>> choose which they want.
> variant2 presently is single_buffer_variant except that instead of
> giving you an error when that's not possible, it silently switches to
> double_buffer_variant and soldiers on. (Which happens rarely.)
> I agree that one can make a good argument for (a variation of)
> double_buffer_variant, which prioritizes strong guarantee over sizeof.
> But that's only needed when your contained types don't have noexcept
> move. In this case, a not unreasonable course of action is to hold them
> by unique_ptr in the variant instead.
Except I don't want to pay for the dynamic memory allocation.
>From my perspective, there is no downside to exposing directly to the
Boost user both single and double buffered implementations.
Let the Boost user decide what tradeoffs they prefer.