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"
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk