AMDG Niels Dekker - address until 2010-10-10 wrote:
Steven Watanabe wrote:
Um. Why do you /want/ to do this?
I don't know, it's just an example. my_integer::operator value_initialized<int>() might do some extra checks that my_integer::operator int() does not. Or whatever. You know, boost::value_initialized<T> has been around for very long already, so I think it's possible that adding a value_initialized(T const&) constructor might break some legacy user code. But please let me know if you have a better example!
If we're changing value_initialized, okay. But I thought we were talking about adding a new class now? Since this won't break backward compatibility, I think the most reasonable response is "don't do that." In Christ, Steven Watanabe