Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] Andrzej's review
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-16 00:11:59
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 7:47 PM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 5:35 PM Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > The main (and only) reason for rejection is the never-empty basic
> > exception-safety guarantee offered and endorsed by the library.
> If I want/need a variant that offers the never-empty basic guarantee
> then Boost should not provide it?
Maybe? How many variants should Boost provide (and I'm not asking that
These tradeoffs are not the ones I would make.
There are two other variants I would rather use in different circumstances:
- Strong exception safety
- Strong performance (never fall back on noexcept move or double
buffering to avoid a possible exception)
I don't know how to vote for this. The design tradeoffs Peter is making
are certainly reasonable ones, but they don't cover the things I do with
variant. I would just fall back on using std::variant over the tradeoffs
being made here.
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden] <nevin_at_[hidden]>> +1-847-691-1404
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk