Re: C++17 skeleton with move semantics and std::variant

[Hans Åberg]

> On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:17, Frank Heckenbach <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
>>> So for C++ we could either go back and disable the static type
>>> checking completely, or do full dynamic checking (which std::variant
>>> does by itself). I choose the latter. As you said, the performance
>>> impact should be small, and the safety benefit substantial. (If
>>> someone doesn't want it, they might be able to use an alternative
>>> variant implementation without checks, or not use variant at all
>>> ...)
>> 
>> That might be the difference: C++, unlike C, needs the types to
>> select the right constructors. To get those and not only PODs was
>> one motivation for introducing the variants.
> 
> Indeed, if one only wants to use PODs in C++, one can use the C
> template (which I did until recently), so there's not much point
> (IMHO) to a C++ template that supports only PODs.

There were much discussion about that, leading up to the variants.