Re: [boost] [variant2] Review of Variant2

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] Review of Variant2
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-14 16:26:22

On 4/14/19 7:05 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
> 
>> Beside these mandatory requests, I'd be very interested if Peter 
>> presented an updated variant proposal, which doesn't create values out 
>> of thin air except if it's monostate.
> 
> Since mostly everyone has objected to it - Bjorn has it as an acceptance 
> condition - I'll remove the "default construct a suitable alternative" 
> fallback.

Glad to hear it, thanks!

> I'm not yet sure about the monostate special case, as it becomes even 
> more special now. I tend towards removing that too, and just offering 
> the strong guarantee.

I think, monostate is useful - as I said in the review, it is a way to 
achieve single buffer when you explicitly accept it as a fallback. I'm 
in favor of keeping it.