Re: [boost] Zero Unnecessary Temporary Objects: A Revolution

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-10 17:05:46

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I just submitted the message below to clc++m and csc++. I will spam the
> boost newsgroup as well for two reasons. One is that there has been heavy
> discussion on the topic of move constructors here, and I believe there is a
> solution. The second is that the ZUTO (see below, sorry for the forward
> declaration :o)) infrastructure is a very good candidate for boost addition.
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> This is a request for a favor.
> Exactly because the implications might be so deep, I don't want to make a
> fool of myself. Maybe I am making some mistake, or I overlooked something,
> or I hit onto some compiler bug or extension. So I wanted to ask for some
> volunteers to review my article before it goes out. If there are volunteers,
> please write me email. The article will be out in 2 months, and I believe
> I'll have something done in a couple of weeks.

I remember having an inkling that something like this was possible the
other day when I was in the shower... but then it flitted away. Might
not have been anything in the first place. Sure, I'd love to take a
look at your article. If you're worried about making a fool of
yourself, think how I'll feel if we propose unneccessary language
changes for move semantics ;-)

-Dave

-- 
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com