From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-09 18:39:10
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Frey" <d.frey_at_[hidden]>
> Some more notes/questions:
> - The patch concentrates on operators.hpp, but there are other
> candidates for NRVO, e.g. next/prior. I suggest that we check the result
> for operators.hpp first and add compiler-configs for other compilers
> that have the NRVO. If this works well for the next release of boost, we
> can start to apply the NRVO-scheme to other libs. OK?
I will give you CVS access if you want to make these changes, as long as
you're willing to be responsible for the consequences (testing,
> - I also fixed some inconsistencies in the documentation of
> operators.hpp, but all very basic stuff that shouldn't be controversial.
I didn't notice.
> - The implementation of other operators use 'x' and 'y' for the
> parameters, sometimes they are swapped, sometimes not. This seems
> inconsistent to me. Is there a common scheme I don't see or should we
> change the code to use lhs/rhs somewhere in the future?
It doesn't matter much to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk