std.boxer

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

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