Niels Dekker - address until 2010-10-10 wrote:
Can anybody please have a look at the following feature request by Edward Diener? https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3472 He proposed to add an explicit constructor, value_initialized(T const&), to boost::value_initialized<T>. This constructor would copy the value of its argument to the object held by value_initialized<T>.
When such a constructor would be added, an object held by value_initialized<T> might no longer be value-initialized. Instead it might be direct-initialized. Does anybody have any moral (?) objections against the idea that value_initialized<T> might hold a non-value-initialized object?
Jeffrey Hellrung wrote:
Is defining a new template class (e.g., value_or_direct_initialized<T>, or whatever) out of the question? Just a suggestion, and not confident it's a good one...
Thanks for the suggestion, Jeffrey! I like it, actually. :-) Maybe we could simply call the new template class boost::initialized<T>.
initialized<T> was actually my initial thought; I chose a crappy name on purpose ;)
I can think of two ways to implement boost::initialized<T> (and adapt value_initialized<T> accordingly): [...]
I'm partial to value_initialized being implemented in terms of initialized, but it is strictly an implementation detail, right? Also, your initialized<T> does not have a default constructor. This makes sense, but I'm just double-checking that this is a conscious decision and not an oversight. - Jeff