Re: [boost] operator implementation

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-28 10:27:49

David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> Actually, I'm not up on the NRVO rules, but I should be. From looking at
> the csc++ thread John Potter seems to be arguing with you, which is never a
> good sign for your side of the argument <wink>, but for all I know you've
> got everything worked out correctly.

We are not arguing about the implementation of NRVO, John is basically
(if I correctly understand what he says) explaining why the other
options cannot be optimized. What he says sounds correct to me, it was
just my way of verifying it. Which is required for me, as I don't have a
copy of the C++ standard. Seems it's time to buy one... :-}

If this also counts as an argument: Scott Meyers mentions the same
scheme I propose in the errata of mec++ as the recommended
implementation.

> What I'd like to see is a condensed (1-2 paragraphs) analysis of the
> problem and your solution with references to the standard so I can quickly
> crosscheck it. If it looks good to everyone here I'll ask you for a patch.
> 
> How does that sound?

I can try to summarize it, but for the references to the standard, I can
only copy them from the csc++ discussion for now. I'll try to do this at
the weekend, let's see if my language skills are sufficient :)

Regards, Daniel

--
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de