From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-04 19:35:30
AMDG
Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> Look, if I have:
>>>
>>> variant<foo,int> a=foo(....);
>>> variant<foo,int> b=foo(....);
>>>
>>> It is my understanding that if I now do:
>>>
>>> a=b;
>>>
>>> I may end up with an int in a. Do you think that this behavior is
>>> reasonable?
>>>
>
> My naive expectation would be for the above code to call
> foo::operator=. This would of course imply that variant::operator=
> would require the types to be assignable.
It does call operator= when both operands have the same type. Thanks.
> That aside, I think that it would be reasonable to expect the type to
> remain foo at least when foo has a nothrow default constructor.
Yes. It shouldn't add runtime overhead to try to fall back to the
original type, if possible.
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe