> > 2. Top level const requirement on bounded types.
> > It's unreasonable. I should be able to define variant with const
> > types. It will be as usable as usual constant types are. The only
> > requirements that we may incur is that if one types is const,
> > rest should be also.
>
> It's actually not unreasonable: one of the primary goals of variant is
> to match the semantics of its bounded types as closely as possible. The
> prohibition on top-level const types, then, is quite reasonable.
>
> To see, consider the following:
>
> const int i = 3;
> i = 4; // error
>
> variant<const int> v;
> v = 4; // error?
>
> If top-level const types *were* allowed, then the assignment would
> succeed. Itay and I decided such was highly undesirable. Let me know if
> you disagree with the above reasoning.
If I understood you properly you having problem with the following code
successful compilation:
template<typename T>
struct A
{
char buf[4];
template<typename Arg>
void
operator=( Arg const& arg )
{
new (buf) T(arg);
}
};
int main() {
A<const int> a;
a = 4;
}
This wouldn't happened if you use reinterpret cast based implementation, but
probably do not want to rely on it. What I would do is to explicitly
prohibit some operations using static asserts for top level const type
situation. It wouldn't cost you anything and allow to support this usage
case.
Gennadiy.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
