Re: [boost] [utility/value_init] boost::value_initialized<T> direct-initialized?

Jeffrey Hellrung 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.

Actually, on second thought, this doesn't make sense, but I might be missing something...why would one use an initialized<T> with no default constructor, rather than just T itself? - Jeff