On 1/6/16 3:09 PM, Glen Fernandes wrote:
Robert wrote:
c) Is there any reason that you haven't submitted this to the Boost Library Incubator?
Agustin's reasons in this thread: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2015/06/223920.php
Glen
Wow - I think I saw some of the thread but it didn't register with me. This is probably because I wasn't interested in variant at the time. Two things stand out for. a) The proposal to bring back the sandbox - To me that's what the incubator is. b) I cloned it, built it and ran the tests. After a very minor hassle with CMake, Everything worked great. c) So this is definitely something that can/should be in the incubator right now so people can easily find it and experiment with it. The requirements of the incubator are designed to: 1) submit code that actually works so it's worth trying 2) provide the author with useful feedback bug reports, etc. So, to me, this is an absolutely ideal candidate to be in there. As a side note, the documentation isn't particularly easy find. The github project has the mark down but not the html so one has to google around for it. Also there are two articles which have very useful information - but they aren't easy to find either. And one more thing. I added the library into my project - and damn! it seems that eggs::variant::variant<int, std::overflow_error> isn't a literal type!!! that is std::is_literal<variant<int, std::overflow_error> returns false_type. This is the original motivation for looking beyond Boost.Variant. It's essential for me to be able to replace my home brew variant which I want to do. I need this to be part of a constexpr function. Robert Ramey