Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
Niels Dekker - address until 2010-10-10 wrote:
Also, your initialized<T> does not have a default constructor. This makes sense, but I'm just double-checking that this is a conscious decision and not an oversight.
No, it's an oversight, sorry! I did not test any code from my last mail!
BTW I'm not entirely sure if the initialized(T const&) constructor would need an "explicit" keyword. What do you think? Should the following be forbidden?
boost::initialized<int> i = 42;
If so, we might as well make it even more explicit, by adding a "tag" parameter of type direct_initialized_t to the constructor, as I proposed before at https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3472 so that users would have to explicitly specify that they want direct-initialization:
boost::initialized<int> i(42, boost::direct_initialized);
I'd much prefer boost::initialized to simply forward constructor arguments. The templated constructor should be explicit, because otherwise things like
boost::initialized<std::vector<int> > v = 10;
would compile. IMHO, it's okay if implicit conversions that would normally work for the contained type don't work, since this errs on the side of safety, but it isn't okay to make all conversions implicit.
Agreed. And I don't think the boost::direct_initialized tag is necessary, MSVC compiler bugs be damned. (I primarily use MSVC9 currently.) - Jeff