Gennadiy Rozental wrote: > > > So what I want is > > > > > > typedef boost::variant<int const,std::string const> GlobalParameter; > > > > > > GlobalParameter input_socket( 12345 ); // localhost::12345 > > > GlobalParameter output_socket( "MultiplexorSocket" ); [snip] > > What if variant is the member of the class template, and we want to > support const type arguments? Why not implement const support if it does not > cost us too much and you agree that there exist possible usage cases?
I argue that top-level const type arguments are meaningless in the context of variant. Given the example you provide: typedef boost::variant<int const, std::string const> GlobalParameter; GlobalParameter input_socket(12345); input_socket = 54321; // no way to prevent this!! If there is no way to prevent the code above, then I see the allowance of top-level const types as misleading, at best. Please help me understand your view if you continue to disagree. > But I feel more relaxed on this point now. Though I believe if variant > will end up without const type support it should be clearly documented that > there is a way to implement variant constants in many cases. We can put it in the docs, but it seems straightforward that a const variant would, in fact, not allow modification. What reason would lead someone to believe otherwise? Thanks, Eric _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
