• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= (9/9) Sep 01 2012 Hi,
• Andrei Alexandrescu (5/10) Sep 02 2012 There was a lot of functionality overlap and std.boxer had bitrotten

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <alex lycus.org> writes:

Hi,

Any particular reason this was removed in favor of std.variant?

No matter how I look at it, they serve very different purposes: 
std.boxer was simply used to wrap an arbitrary value in a (class) heap 
box; it had nothing to do with discriminated unions as std.variant does.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex lycus.org
http://lycus.org

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 9/2/12 8:16 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 Hi,

 Any particular reason this was removed in favor of std.variant?

 No matter how I look at it, they serve very different purposes:
 std.boxer was simply used to wrap an arbitrary value in a (class) heap
 box; it had nothing to do with discriminated unions as std.variant does.

There was a lot of functionality overlap and std.boxer had bitrotten 
quite a bit. I agree that a way to easily place objects in classes would 
be useful. What would a modern design look like?

Andrei