29 Jan
2013
29 Jan
'13
8:04 p.m.
On Tuesday 29 January 2013 09:25:11 Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
This discussion might be facilitated if Joel et al (sorry Joel, I don't mean to pick on you, I just mean the group arguing for introducing this "singular" post-move state) simply said "yes, we understand we're making a breaking change (by possibly introducing an additional state to variant that violates the never-empty guarantee), but we still think it's the most practical approach to introduce efficient move semantics to variant".
That was my position from the start of this discussion.