27 Sep
2015
27 Sep
'15
9:30 p.m.
On 9/27/2015 6:12 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 27.09.2015 23:45, Matt Calabrese wrote: As much as I like the idea of reusing the storage for discriminator, this just feels too fragile to me. Maybe if there was a safer interface for supporting intrusive_optional in user defined types it wouldn't feel that way.
I toyed with an `intrusive_optional<T>` several years ago. It required `T` be constructible from and equality-comparable to `intrusive_optional_tag`. This tag could only be constructed by `intrusive_optional`. Regards, -- Agustín K-ballo Bergé.- http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com