On 1/10/2011 7:35 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 09/01/2011 17:29, Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
On 1/9/2011 6:03 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
Writing a variant replacement is actually quite easy, and doing so would greatly reduce your compile times. Variant is old, full of quirks, and doesn't scale well. Why it even requires its MPL input sequence to be Front Extensible (which it doesn't even state in its documentation) is beyond me. This is a very annoying limitation that makes it impractical to use with a large amount of types, since compatibility with joint_view would be very nice in that situation.
So, why not fix Boost.Variant instead of having everyone roll his own?
Because, as I said, it's full of quirks. Writing your own implementation that fits your needs, compiles fast and runs fast is way less effort than trying to get fixes into variant.
Agreed. Perhaps it's time for V2 that does not necessarily have to be fully backward compatible. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net