Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] Formal review
From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-16 22:58:50
On 17/04/2019 05:07, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> I guess you are referring to function std::visit(), which checks for
>> valueless_by_exception state and if one is detected throws an exception.
> I counted 20+ checks, but actually even if the runtime cost was zero, the
> empty state is one more thing the user has to think about, one more thing
> that could go wrong -- but only in the context of error handling where
> writing unit tests, debugging and QA are all extra difficult.
That's just an example of poor design/optimisation, though. The
valueless state should be treated as just another index position exactly
like any other (ironically, pretty much exactly how Peter's
"non-valueless" variant does). Then checking for the valueless state is
precisely identical to checking for any other state, so it does come for
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk