Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] Comments on documentation
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-07 13:07:32

Bjorn Reese wrote:
> > Destructors are noexcept by default.
> Why is ~variant_base_impl() marked as noexcept in the implementation?

Does it matter, really? I don't remember why I marked it noexcept. There's
no difference.

> What about my questions about a tutorial and design rationale? Those are
> genuine questions. I am trying to understand if their absence is
> deliberate or due to lack of time.

The absence of a tutorial and a design rationale are not deliberate, in the
sense that I don't believe that the documentation is better without them.
Lack of time is more correct.

My initial idea was that the target audience for this library consists
largely of people who already know they need a variant type, but can't or
don't want to use std::variant for some reason. They could make do without a
tutorial. Or stated more diplomatically, my estimate was that they would
prefer having the library available sooner without a tutorial than waiting
for a tutorial that they don't need.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at