Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] Formal review
From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-14 23:48:03
On 15/04/2019 08:58, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> Yes, but the question was about the benefits of the never-empty
>> guarantee. If the never-empty guarantee doesn't help with maintaining
>> higher level invariants, then what benefit does it bring?
> If the design allows for one more state, then that state must be handled:
> various functions in the program must check "is the object empty" and
> define behavior for that case. The benefit of the never-empty guarantee is
> that no checks are needed because the object may not be empty.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't see the difference between "is this
empty" and "did this unexpectedly change type", except that the former
is easier to detect (and hence better).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk