Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-29 15:04:57
On Tuesday 29 January 2013 09:25:11 Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>
> This discussion might be facilitated if Joel et al (sorry Joel, I don't
> mean to pick on you, I just mean the group arguing for introducing this
> "singular" post-move state) simply said "yes, we understand we're making a
> breaking change (by possibly introducing an additional state to variant
> that violates the never-empty guarantee), but we still think it's the most
> practical approach to introduce efficient move semantics to variant".
That was my position from the start of this discussion.