Joel de Guzman wrote: > > I'll also be needing variant a lot from inside template code. I > dislike the template keyword that gets in the way. IMO, the way to go > is the > C++ cast style syntax: extract<T>(v). There should only be one way > to do this. Not two. And FWIW, there's a precedent. Although > currently, boost::tuples has two ways to access its elements > get<N>(t) and t.get<N>(), > the TR (and the one that will be a part of the standard) for tuples > does not have the member get anymore. IMO, this is a strong case > *for* the free > cast style and *against* the member function style. The variant and > optional should strive to follow tuple's lead. In fact, come to think > of it, why not just: > > get<T>(v) Compelling argument, and I like the suggestion. For consistency with tuples, get would always return a reference or throw. The remaining question would then be what the nothrow version would look like. Perhaps get_ptr<T>(v).
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
