Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-07-04 23:34:16

On 5/07/2019 00:08, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> Not at all. The types mentioned in Robert's message are very different,
>> so merging them into one component makes as much sense to me as the
>> speculation I made.
> +1
> Just because two types are similar syntactically, doesn't mean that they
> have similar semantics. For example, just because one needs variant's
> functionality to implement outcome, doesn't mean that semantically outcome
> should be e.g. an instance of some variant template.
> The whole point of correct design is to remove flexibility that does not
> pertain to what the interface is designed to do, leaving the user with only
> the options that the interface designer has determined to be necessary and
> sufficient.

I agree, but that just suggests that the "mother of all variants" should
actually be a "variant_storage" type; you can then have "variant" and
"optional" etc expose only parts of its interface in their own
interface, either through standard composition or through private

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at