Niels Dekker - address until 2010-10-10 wrote:
I think /the/ motivating use case for boost::initialized<T> is about member data initialization: [...] Do you agree that its support for member data initialization would be the main reason for having boost::initialized<T>?
Yes.
And I don't think the boost::direct_initialized tag is necessary, MSVC compiler bugs be damned.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. It's certainly important to me to have something that works on MSVC.
Is that MSVC bug (the one referenced in the value_initialized ticket...no link handy at the moment) not "workaroundable" by explicitly defining the derived class' copy constructor? And isn't it only a problem when the base class has a constructor other than the copy constructor that that a const derived& can bind to? Perhaps I need to go back and reread the Microsoft ticket... - Jeff