Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, could optionalT use variantT, SomeInsipidType as a backend?
I suggested that before. Now I think that it is not practical.
It can, but it will not be optimal.
I see it the other way now. I suggest that a partial specialization of
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
variant throws throws a bad_get exception
when you get a reference to a T which is not the held type. I don't see
a problem why you can't do something similar.
Pardon
[Fernando Cacciola]
I'm saying that the choice made by variant in this regards is to the
code using get as hopeless as undefined behaviour. I don't think that
preconditions (and exceptions thereof) should be used to arbitrarily
make the illusion of giving meaning to an operation that is
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:22:01PM -0600, Dave Gomboc wrote:
[Fernando Cacciola]
I'm saying that the choice made by variant in this regards is to the
code using get as hopeless as undefined behaviour. I don't think that
preconditions (and exceptions thereof) should be used to arbitrarily
Dave Gomboc [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fernando Cacciola]
I'm saying that the choice made by variant in this regards is to the
code using get as hopeless as undefined behaviour. I don't think that
preconditions (and exceptions thereof) should be used
Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You did sell the idea that it can be a union, but I held to the idea that
it can just as well be considered as *REALLY REALLY REALLY*
nothing else but a container that
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Point taken.
There's no need to argue anymore.
I guess significantly more feedback will weight the balance.
Thanks for all your comments!
It might look the other way around but they were very helpful.
Bottom line is, and most importantly,
