On 3/26/19 12:08 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote: [snip]
As long as there are non-trivial trade-offs for any type/template, there will be reasonable users who would opt for different trade-offs when in different domains. We just have to decide which combinations of the trade-offs are worth collecting into a facility that is present in boost or the standard or elsewhere.
True. And maybe names of different variants of variant should reflect the different trade-offs. Maybe noempty::variant rather than variant2::variant?
What about: template<typename... T> struct boost::variant2<T...>: std::variant<T...> { ... }; ? After all, isn't boost::variant2<T...> simply more restrictive than std::variant<T...> in that boost::variant2 has the the never-valueless requirement but std::variant does not.