On 1/12/13 1:26 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Paul Smith wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Peter Dimov <lists@pdimov.com> wrote:
Paul Smith wrote:
Still, there's no need to supress move construction in the absence of a no-throw default constructible type.
No, you could still keep the current behavior.
I think this was affirmative, but I'm not sure.
It was. :-) No, there's no need to suppress move construction. Not having a move constructor isn't really any better than having the throwing one.
I'm not sure whether this will be satisfactory from Spirit point of view though. Do all Spirit uses contain an appropriate fallback type?
At least all of the grammars I write do. That is also what I advocate. You'll almost always need a "blank" type in there to represent the "no-match" case and variant always default constructs with the first type in the type-list, and users are warned not to have heavy objects as the first type. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com