Ronald Garcia wrote: > In reading through the variant docs, I noticed a requirement that at least > two types must be supported by the variant. Is this meant for ease of > library implementation, or is this a means of protecting programmers from > themselves? :-) [snip]
In addition to the comments offered by Itay, the original idea was that one parameter would be reserved exclusively for the variant<Types> syntax. With the advent of mpl::is_sequence, however, this is no longer necessary IMO. Now, particularly after proposals for the idea of variant containing an empty 'void' type, I am in favor of eliminating the parameter count requirement altogether. In other words, variant<> would be shorthand for variant<void>, which would be always empty but still conformant with the variant interface. Thanks for your comments. Eric _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
