Re: [boost] [review][variant2] Variant2 Review Starts April 1

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 struct boost::variant2: std::variant { ... }; ? After all, isn't boost::variant2 simply more restrictive than std::variant in that boost::variant2 has the the never-valueless requirement but std::variant does not.